Race 'Science'

[dann]

Dann

A large chunk of the SR article was about the flynn effect.

Yes, it was. What is your point?

Is there such a thing as a straw man version of ad hom?

Why do you ask me? You are the one who accused me of ad homs, aren't you?

In practice, it seems like insulting someone is poor way to get one's point across. I dunno, but the article came across as sophomoric to me for what I perceived to be ad homs.

I don't really care how the article came across to you.

What data would convince you before I spend time posting to address this?

Would convince me of what?

 

[jimtron]

Still though isn't the claim that "race doesn't exist" or is only a "social construct" a mostly political statement about the need to not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity? I don't get the need to go over the top with misleading claims like that.

Because although correct on a scientific level that there is overlap between all races, it's true that the most genetically different people are those who's ancestors came from different places, leaving time to become genetically different and better adapted to things like the amount of UV rays.

That's what most people think when they think of 'race' not a straw man of having no similarities between races.

Do you believe that race can be scientifically defined? I don't think this is a matter of political correctness, I think that race truly is a social construct. Can you strictly name and strictly define all of the races? Or point to a link that does?

The issue of defining race was discussed recently on this thread.

eta: FYI, Latent Aaaack and I discussed whether race could be defined or not on page 9 of the aforementioned thread--starting with the first post of that page. From the first page of the long thread, I asked for a strict definition of the "black race;" AFAIK, I never got one.

 

[This is The End]

In the future could the dog breed analogy be replaced with cats, or as a second option, butterflies?

 

[bpesta22]

Yes, it was. What is your point?
Why do you ask me? You are the one who accused me of ad homs, aren't you? I don't really care how the article came across to you.

Would convince me of what?

Ok, now I'm confused, unless you wrote the article in skeptic report. My claim of ad homs was not directed at your post but the report in SR. Maybe I was unclear in the original post where I said it.

But, the whole reason my replies focused on the SR article is because I claimed it-- versus whatever you posted beside the link to SR-- was a piece of crap / ad hom thingy.


This is what I said:

Gesh, are all articles in skeptic report this bad-- what an ad homming piece of crap!


Unless you're the author of the SR article, I don't understand your reaction.

 

[dann]

So you haven't found one single ad hom?

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)

Thought so!

 

[DanishDynamite]

Here's another comparison for you - when I went to uni many moons ago, we sat in a new subject called molecular phylogeny. Our professor was working on detailing the molecular relationships between individual species of bacteria, and was finding that the previous morphological and biochemical parameters set were insufficient in creating a good phylogenic tree.

Once, morphology was useful enough in exploring relationships. While on a gross level, it still confers some use, on the finer level it fell apart in describing much of anything faithfully. Genetic analysis revolutionised phylogeny and continues to do so.

Humans are much the same. Morphological categories without referring to geographical locations are like looking at sub-species without taking into account their being an isolated population. In other words, genetically it is a meaningless category - as inaccurate in phylogeny as pre-molecular phylogeny was for bacteria.

I honestly don't know what you are getting at here, athon. Are you saying that it not true that humans have developed slightly differently depending on where they were located geographically and their degree of isolation from other humans? Are you saying that these differences are not immediately obvious to any 5 year-old and that they are genetic differences in the sense that, two Aboriginies will generally get an "aboriginie" looking offspring while two Pygmies will get a "pygmie" offspring and so on? Are you saying that a Border Collie pup is not obviously a Border Collie and not a Saint Bernard? Please explain exactly what you are saying.

You missed my point - it is only useful in the context of geographical populations. It potentially offers some insight into how gene flow could occur between distinct groups. Yet if simply looking at a genetic comparison, removing the greater context, the term 'sub-species' is effectively meaningless. That's why you won't tend to read the differentiation in molecular genetics circles, but you will in population genetics.

Athon

Ergo, as you said it is useful. So why try to define away a reality?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Still though isn't the claim that "race doesn't exist" or is only a "social construct" a mostly political statement about the need to not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity? I don't get the need to go over the top with misleading claims like that.

Because although correct on a scientific level that there is overlap between all races, it's true that the most genetically different people are those who's ancestors came from different places, leaving time to become genetically different and better adapted to things like the amount of UV rays.

That's what most people think when they think of 'race' not a straw man of having no similarities between races.

Anyone claiming it is a "social construct" is about as skeptical as John Edwards.

It is almost surreal for me to even have to make an argument that an Eskimo is not a Pygmy and that a Masai is not Aboriginie.

 

[jimtron]

Anyone claiming it is a "social construct" is about as skeptical as John Edwards.

It is almost surreal for me to even have to make an argument that an Eskimo is not a Pygmy and that a Masai is not Aboriginie.

DD: If race is not a social construct, could you list each race and define each one's unique characteristics, in a scientific way? Or link to a source that does this?

If race cannot be scientifically defined, what is it if not a social construct? If it can be scientifically defined, please do so.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD: If race is not a social construct, could you list each race and define each one's unique characteristics, in a scientific way? Or link to a source that does this?

If race cannot be scientifically defined, what is it if not a social construct? If it can be scientifically defined, please do so.

I could find many pages naming and describing races, but unfourtunately most, if not all, are of doubtful "pedigree" )). I suspect the reason for this is the same reason we are even having this discussion.

 

[bpesta22]

So you haven't found one single ad hom?
Thought so!

Ok, I'm still confused. I submit the article in SR is a piece of crap, in part because it spends too much time insulting the person versus addressing the argument. Does he claim the arguments invalid because of the insults? No. Does that technically make it not an ad hom? I dunno (whatever we label it, hurling insults doesn't seem like a good way to get a point across.

But you may have the win here if you want it. If indeed adhoms are restricted to comments of the you suck therefore you're wrong variety, then I dont think there were any of those in the SR article.

 

[jimtron]

I could find many pages naming and describing races, but unfourtunately most, if not all, are of doubtful "pedigree" )). I suspect the reason for this is the same reason we are even having this discussion.

So do you agree that race can't be defined scientifically? And if so, what is race if not a social construct?

 

[DanishDynamite]

So do you agree that race can't be defined scientifically? And if so, what is race if not a social construct?

No, I obviously don't agree. It can be as easily defined as all other sub-species are defined. Even today, with the ever greater intermingling.

One could even make it a simple international study. Ask a representative number of people in each country to describe the races they have ever met and ask them to provide a photograph or description of each.

I suspect you find at least 40-50 races which could be agreed upon by most.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Races obviously exist just as breeds of dogs exist or sub-species exist in the terms of science.

It amazes me whenever someone decides to "prove" that races don't exist when the evidence that they do, is all about us. It also amazes me when one is instantly called a racist as soon as one simply mentions that races exist.

That's a false assumption by genetic standards. Certain genes or traits are more common in some races, but in reality, the superficial differences in appearance are rather arbitrary for claiming such features make up a group. For example, why not divide races up by blood type?

What makes the minor amount of genetic material that gives one their outward appearance the importance to say that is how we should group people. Overlap occurs a whole lot anyway, and the same gene makeup isn't always included in each individual one identifies as a certain race (for example multiple genes are responsible for skin color so not all blacks are going to have the same genetic markers involved ion their skin color).

 

[drkitten]

Anyone claiming it is a "social construct" is about as skeptical as John Edwards.

It is almost surreal for me to even have to make an argument that an Eskimo is not a Pygmy and that a Masai is not Aboriginie.

Yes, but none of those are "races." In fact, to most people a Masai anda Pygmy are the "same" race (both "black," "negro," or whatever), despite the fact that they're probably genetically more distinct from each other than a Japanese is from a Finn.

I will grant for the sake of argument that humans can be grouped into genetic clades. (Actually, that's probably not true -- there's enough intermixture that it makes it very difficult to do such grouping. But there do seem to be moderate-sized groups that are relatively uniform. So, as I said, I will grant the existence of clades.) These "clades," however, tend to be relatively small -- no larger than a few million at most and often far smaller.

The problem is that there is no rational way to group clades into anything that sensibly looks like "races." The "Finns," for example, might form a clade, as might the "Icelandic" and the "Japanese," and the "Australian Aboriginal" and the "Tasmanian." The question becomes how to put them together. Most people would like to group the Finns with the Icelandic as part of a "Nordic" or "White" or "Aryan" race. The problem is that those larger scale groupings quickly collapse under analysis; two relatively closely related groups will be in different "races," and two entirely different groups will be entirely separate. There is, for example, more genetic diversity in Africa (among the "black" race) than there is in the entire rest of the world combined -- the Navajo, Norwegians, and Japanese are all more closely related to each other than, say, the Masai and Watusi.

Think of it this way : there are certainly biological species -- a "cat" is meaningful, as is a "dog." Those are biological constructs, not social ones. But suppose I wanted to define the super-categories of "pets" "food animals" and "predators." We would find that both cats and goldfish are "pets" and that sharks and wolves are predators. (And, of course tuna and cows are "food animals.") What biological basis can you make for that distinction?

Similarly, "cats" are pets, as are "dogs" -- but "wolves" and "tigers" are "predators." Chickens are "food animals" while eagles are "predators" and parakeets are "pets." Again, I defy you to justify this categorization biologically. The fact that some species are often kepts as pets and others are not does not in any way justify "pet" as a biological category; "pet" is a purely social construction.

So you're right about a Masai not being a pygmy. But what you can't do is defined what Masai and pygmies (and the rest of the "black" race) have in common that makes them "the same race," while excluding the Italians....

 

[DanishDynamite]

That's a false assumption by genetic standards. Certain genes or traits are more common in some races, but in reality, the superficial differences in appearance are rather arbitrary for claiming such features make up a group. For example, why not divide races up by blood type?

For example, because that isn't how sub-species are defined.

What makes the minor amount of genetic material that gives one their outward appearance the importance to say that is how we should group people. Overlap occurs a whole lot anyway, and the same gene makeup isn't always included in each individual one identifies as a certain race (for example multiple genes are responsible for skin color so not all blacks are going to have the same genetic markers involved ion their skin color).

It does so because this is a useful way to categorize.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, but none of those are "races." In fact, to most people a Masai anda Pygmy are the "same" race (both "black," "negro," or whatever), despite the fact that they're probably genetically more distinct from each other than a Japanese is from a Finn.

Of course they are races. They are all easily distinguishable from each other, and their offspring are likewise. They are races.

I will grant for the sake of argument that humans can be grouped into genetic clades. (Actually, that's probably not true -- there's enough intermixture that it makes it very difficult to do such grouping. But there do seem to be moderate-sized groups that are relatively uniform. So, as I said, I will grant the existence of clades.) These "clades," however, tend to be relatively small -- no larger than a few million at most and often far smaller.

How large of you to grant the obvious. What might be a clade and how is it relevant to this discussion?

The problem is that there is no rational way to group clades into anything that sensibly looks like "races." The "Finns," for example, might form a clade, as might the "Icelandic" and the "Japanese," and the "Australian Aboriginal" and the "Tasmanian." The question becomes how to put them together. Most people would like to group the Finns with the Icelandic as part of a "Nordic" or "White" or "Aryan" race. The problem is that those larger scale groupings quickly collapse under analysis; two relatively closely related groups will be in different "races," and two entirely different groups will be entirely separate. There is, for example, more genetic diversity in Africa (among the "black" race) than there is in the entire rest of the world combined -- the Navajo, Norwegians, and Japanese are all more closely related to each other than, say, the Masai and Watusi.

There is more genetic diversity among dogs than between a German Shephard and a Great Dane. What of it?

Think of it this way : there are certainly biological species -- a "cat" is meaningful, as is a "dog." Those are biological constructs, not social ones. But suppose I wanted to define the super-categories of "pets" "food animals" and "predators." We would find that both cats and goldfish are "pets" and that sharks and wolves are predators. (And, of course tuna and cows are "food animals.") What biological basis can you make for that distinction?

Please look up "sub-species". It should enlighten.

Similarly, "cats" are pets, as are "dogs" -- but "wolves" and "tigers" are "predators." Chickens are "food animals" while eagles are "predators" and parakeets are "pets." Again, I defy you to justify this categorization biologically. The fact that some species are often kepts as pets and others are not does not in any way justify "pet" as a biological category; "pet" is a purely social construction.

drkitten, I really don't know where you are going with this stuff. It barely relates to the question at hand.

So you're right about a Masai not being a pygmy. But what you can't do is defined what Masai and pygmies (and the rest of the "black" race) have in common that makes them "the same race," while excluding the Italians....

The Masai and the Pygmy are not the same race. Where did you get this odd idea?

 

[jimtron]

DanishDynamite:

If race isn't a social construct, what is it?

 

[drkitten]

Of course they are races. They are all easily distinguishable from each other, and their offspring are likewise. They are races.

No. If you look at the word 'race," it's used primarily for large-scale groupings. Here's an example ; I believe it's a hiring form for Illinois Institute of Technology, used to gather the legally mandated statistics on race in hiring.

Here's another example, this one a general-purpose form recommended by the lawyers that supply companies with the necessary forms for their business. This page describes a typical demographer's view of "race" : "Caucasian, Negro and Asian are the three basics. You can add Malay/Polynesian, Australian Aborigine and American 'Indian' to get six. You can keep going."

Here is the form that the State of New Jersey demands to determing whether you are in compliance with the anti-discrimination laws. Again, notice the presence of "black" and the absence of any way to distinguish Masai from Pygmy. Here's the corresponding form for the city of Champaign, IL Here's a sample "Affirmative Action Program" from the (Federal) Department of Labor, which is the rubric against which companies are evaluated for compliance.

The Masai and the Pygmy are not the same race. Where did you get this odd idea?

From the way the word "race" is used. I could find a thousand forms asking you for your "race" that would group Masai and Pygmy into the same category. Perhaps more importantly, if a Masai sued your company for racial discrimination, the company would be able to point to the number of Pygmies it has hired as direct evidence in its defense.

Which is biologically ridiculous. As you accept, the Masai and Pygmies have almost nothing in common either genetically or socially, except for the fact that they both derive from "Africa" and they both have dark skin (relative to the Anglo-Caucasians who write the laws).

But that's the point. The social structure has defined that Masai and Pygmies are both "black" and are legally interchangable w.r.t. to things like affirmative action. "Race" is a social construct that groups together unrelated clades of people on the basis of social, not biological, norms.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

No, I obviously don't agree. It can be as easily defined as all other sub-species are defined. Even today, with the ever greater intermingling.

One could even make it a simple international study. Ask a representative number of people in each country to describe the races they have ever met and ask them to provide a photograph or description of each.

I suspect you find at least 40-50 races which could be agreed upon by most.

That is not scientific, agreed upon by whom? Anthropologists? Civil servants? Estate Agents? and Drkitten's point about pets etc is valid and relevant though you have dismissed it. You still haven't been able to remotely define "race" - not the same as subjectively or intuitively describing or identifying .

 

[DanishDynamite]

DanishDynamite:

If race isn't a social construct, what is it?

Science.