Mavorpen wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
To be fair, I think the demonstrated differences across populations is a good thing.
However, they're just not meaningful for the social sciences and are vastly more meaningful in the medical field, where knowing the predisposition one group (or colloquially "Race") has of having X disease is significantly more important and significantly more meaningful.
I disagree, to an extent. Race based diagnosing has done significant damage to the medical field as a whole, and it's substantially more effective to look at patients on an individual basis and look through their family history. There's some overlap between that and populations, but it's applied to something much too broad, whereas it's much more effective to observe and diagnose with a more specific and less vague method.
Mind if I ask if you could give some examples as to the sort of damage that race-based diagnosing and epidemiological studies have done in the medical field? Just curious.


