Race is a social construct without scientific support

[Jaunty tunes]

there are breeds of dog. Such as a bulldog, collie, greyhound and many more. If there are no human races by that logic there would also be no brreds of dog. They are instead all dogs.

Due to human differences there can be classifications into smaller sections of species. This would be best on genetics but because genetic traits are inherited and some are visible there is a decent metod of classifying races.

[Hydesland]

My main problem with your reponses is two-fold: (1) you don't seem to be presenting a coherent, consitent viewpoint (in other words, your answers seem to just rebut the last thing I said and are inconsistent)

Only because you're deliberately being overtly pedantic, and the minor inconsistencies, even if they do exist, or so massively trivial as to completely negligible and almost entirely irrelevant from the thrust of the issue.

For example, are Africans a race? What other races are there? Your continued inability or unwillingness to define race and how one categorizes individuals by race (whether by scientific or "common" standards) undermines your entire set of posts.

Despite the fact that I've repeatedly defined race on many occasions now. I don't see why you're having trouble with the concept, as I have said so many times now, that what people describe as race is not perfectly taxonomic. For these reasons, what one considers race depends on your perspective and how many residual traits are shared, in the same way what one considers what a language is as opposed to a dialectdepends on your approach. There are different ways to group or class hereditary groups and populations (the definition of human race I have given you numerous times now) in the same way there are different ways to class and group languages or even geographic areas, I NEVER denied this, in fact I have emphasised this point to others. The reason I'm unwilling to specifically state whether X is a race is game theoretical, precisely because, as with groupings and definitions of different languages, it is flexible on how specific you want to be, so if I WERE to say X is race, you could easily point out that SOME people don't class X as a race but instead more specifically class X1 and X2 as separate races, which misses the point entirely. There is no significant reason why this is a problem any more than with the word 'population', or 'ethnicity' or 'hereditary group', there is no objective universal boundaries for each of these words, it does not follow however that these words are meaningless, only that their meaning, as with the vast majority of words, is bounded by context.

[Formicidae Maximus]

1. You make a simple, but telling error. The existence of human differences -- even the ability to group populations -- doesn't mean these differences equate to racial differences. More importantly, depending on what differences one uses to group populations, one gets different results. There is no single word for differences between individuals and/or groups of individuals because there is no single set of such differences.

You didn't answer my question. What do you call these differences? For that matter, you're hilariously arrogant in saying they don't equate 'Racial Differences', given that the definition of 'Race' varies widely depending on the subject it's used in.

You happen to presume that the 'Standard' definition is somethhing Leopold II would've approved of. That is not the definition I'm arguing in favour of. Understand this before trying to make your points. You're running through open doors and thoroughly miss the ones I actually care about.

2. You make clear that you cannot define race, cannot say how many races there are, or how one categorizes someone by race. Your dissembling about 1900 mindsets doesn't distract from your inability to answer what should be any easy question for someone who insists race exists and is a meaningful scientific concept.

I've already spent two posts and not inconsiderable effort to explaining why 'Race' is a perfectly meaningful concept despite, simply by virtue of being a biological concept, not allowing 'Strict' divisions that aren't vaguely artificial. Frankly, I'm too lazy to repeat myself. Though I find it rather interesting that you insist on the necessity of strict 'Real' boundaries despite supposedly being aware that this is simply not possible in biology - why exactly should the standards for 'Race' be higher than the standards for 'Species', and infinitely higher than the standards for 'Genus', 'Family' or 'Tribe'?

You're artificially setting the goalposts higher for a certain concept because it happens to not befit your ideology. That's called dishonesty.

2a. This little tidbit reveals most of what we need to know about your mindset and motives and why they are unacceptable:

I take issues with the 'We're all totally equal' brainbug this idea causes in all too many people. We're not. Sure, we're not a hierarchical 'Ladder' of inferior and superior races, either - but standing on the same evolutionary step doesn't make us all equal.

And I think you're illiterate for not getting what I'm actually saying. If you've your head so far up your ass that you cannot help but equal 'Not Equal' as 'OMG RACIST!!!11', as opposed to 'Not Equal', which means nothing more and nothing less than 'Different', and says absolutely nothing whatsoever about hierarchical relationships, then frankly, you can't be helped. German shepherds are not equal to chihuahuas. Does that mean that everyone who insists that the two aren't equal is a dog-racist who prefers one over the other?

That's what you're saying, and it's retarded. If you want to debate ideology... Well, admittedly, NSG is exactly the right place for you. But ideology is not science. It is the intentional (Miss-)interpretation of factual data to suit one's worldview.

And if you wish to debate ideology, you've no right to pretend that you're really debating science (Though, like all ideologists, you'll do it, anyway). You're simply bullshitting on a grand scale, no different from a, say, white supremacist. Just from the other end of the spectrum.

3. Human differences DO NOT EQUAL racial differences. Repeat that until you get it.

I asked you before, and you still haven't replied. What are they?

4. Asked for proof that race is as meaningful as species, you offer nothing but your own semi-coherent ramblings. Not good enough.

I said race is as meaningful as every biological classification other than species, and only mildly less so than species, and I provided examples of the 'Species' classification itself not being anywhere near as clear-cut as people tend to believe. I'm not entirely clear why you expect me to provide proof for something I've never said outside of your vivid imagination.

5. Pray tell what are the "assorted [] criteria" by which we can reliably classify people by race?

Ever heard the term 'Anatomy'?

6. Asked to support your claim that "race is a 'useful' biological boundary" that does more good than harm, you offer only that we can predict a handful of seemingly insignificant information based on an individual's "race." Not responsive. Further, your assurance that we can make such predictions reliably is based on nothing but your own assertion.

Okay. Let me get this right. First, you're implying that whether something should be accepted as factual shouldn't be based on its factuality, but on whether it does more good that bad (A good case can be made that post-1890 physics should thus not be accepted, on account of arguably doing more bad than good). Secondly, you're implying that characteristics facilitating the survival of individuals in their local environment to the point where they resulted in significant phenotypical changes are 'Insignificant'.

Survival is insignificant. Reproductive fitness is insignificant.

You complained about me plain lol'ing. But you know what? I'll do it again.

lol

7. Asked to name the alleged "fair number of scientists" who believe race is a valid biologically determined classification, you lamely reply that, in your use of secondary sources, you find "race" is still being used. That is non-responsive. Also, I have a host of peer-reviewed studies on the misuse and/or inaccurate use of race in medicine and scientific research. Don't make me go there.

So, what you're saying is that the term 'Race' is in fact used in medical and scientific research, and you've a host of these peer-reviewed studies available?

Well, that answers your own question, doesn't it?

8. I did not misread the study. I fucking quoted it. You misread it.

Then why did you claim the study said something it, uh... Didn't say?

9. When a study flatly says (for example) "race is social construct, not a scientific classification," "genetic diversity in skin color ... cannot be used for purposes of classification," "[c]haracterizations of race are thus purely social constructs," and "racial distinctions ... are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful," it is NOT merely my interpretation of the study you are blithely dismissing. To say otherwise is delusional.

An article interpreting the studies other people have made is, sadly, not a study itself. It's doing exactly the same thing you do, and can consequently be criticised in the same fashion.

10. Feel free to provide links to Dawkins's work "making essentially all the points in favor of 'Race' [you] are making." Not my job to do your homework for you. And, by the way, Dawkins -- although I highly respect him -- (a) could be wrong on one subject and (b) doesn't exactly form an overwhelming scientific consensus on his own.

Yeah, because I should totally infringe copyright. What's so hard about spending some money to get it first hand?

Also, did it occur to you that not just Dawkins, but the people you're quoting (Actually, the people you're quoting who are summarising and interpeting studies of other people you've quoted who did no such thing) could be wrong, too? Just a thought.

[Vittos Ordination]

They're not arguing for a lack of differences. They're arguing that the group itself is a social construct.

For example, "white" means whatever distinguishes "white" from "non-white". "White" people have different skin colors, eye colors (well, some do), hair color (again, some do), more narrow noses (or some do) than "non-white" people.

But "white" people chose those traits precisely because they reinforce preconceived notions of in/out grouping. The differences are real, but the group label isn't. And, those out-of-group differences are focused upon, while other in-group differences are ignored, because they reinforce the group label that we created in the first place.

But if the studies point to between-group genetic differences, and since a recent study pointed to 4% of genetic material being present in non-African populations but not in African populations, and since I believe the migrations of humans were rather abrupt occurrences, I find it hard to believe that there is no scientific support for the existence of races.

I fully accept that social construct of race extends far beyond what science would support, but from what I have read it appears that there is at least some scientific basis for it.

I will be glad to have someone point out why what I am saying is wrong.

[Ifreann]

there are breeds of dog. Such as a bulldog, collie, greyhound and many more. If there are no human races by that logic there would also be no brreds of dog. They are instead all dogs.

Due to human differences there can be classifications into smaller sections of species. This would be best on genetics but because genetic traits are inherited and some are visible there is a decent metod of classifying races.

The point, that you've cheerfully missed, is that races as they exist now are about as sensible a way of classifying people as classifying animals by colour.

[The Cat-Tribe]

there are breeds of dog. Such as a bulldog, collie, greyhound and many more. If there are no human races by that logic there would also be no brreds of dog. They are instead all dogs.

Due to human differences there can be classifications into smaller sections of species. This would be best on genetics but because genetic traits are inherited and some are visible there is a decent metod of classifying races.

Although your post shows you don't understand the subject of this thread and didn't read the OP, I'm glad you posted it because it provides a perfect contrast to the lack of clear genetic distinctions among humans. Dog breeds CAN be easily distinquished genetically -- quite unlike any alleged racial divisions among humans. See, e.g., http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articl ... 20/dog.php

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. You make a simple, but telling error. The existence of human differences -- even the ability to group populations -- doesn't mean these differences equate to racial differences. More importantly, depending on what differences one uses to group populations, one gets different results. There is no single word for differences between individuals and/or groups of individuals because there is no single set of such differences.

You didn't answer my question. What do you call these differences? For that matter, you're hilariously arrogant in saying they don't equate 'Racial Differences', given that the definition of 'Race' varies widely depending on the subject it's used in.

You happen to presume that the 'Standard' definition is somethhing Leopold II would've approved of. That is not the definition I'm arguing in favour of. Understand this before trying to make your points. You're running through open doors and thoroughly miss the ones I actually care about.

2. You make clear that you cannot define race, cannot say how many races there are, or how one categorizes someone by race. Your dissembling about 1900 mindsets doesn't distract from your inability to answer what should be any easy question for someone who insists race exists and is a meaningful scientific concept.

I've already spent two posts and not inconsiderable effort to explaining why 'Race' is a perfectly meaningful concept despite, simply by virtue of being a biological concept, not allowing 'Strict' divisions that aren't vaguely artificial. Frankly, I'm too lazy to repeat myself. Though I find it rather interesting that you insist on the necessity of strict 'Real' boundaries despite supposedly being aware that this is simply not possible in biology - why exactly should the standards for 'Race' be higher than the standards for 'Species', and infinitely higher than the standards for 'Genus', 'Family' or 'Tribe'?

You're artificially setting the goalposts higher for a certain concept because it happens to not befit your ideology. That's called dishonesty.

2a. This little tidbit reveals most of what we need to know about your mindset and motives and why they are unacceptable:

I take issues with the 'We're all totally equal' brainbug this idea causes in all too many people. We're not. Sure, we're not a hierarchical 'Ladder' of inferior and superior races, either - but standing on the same evolutionary step doesn't make us all equal.

And I think you're illiterate for not getting what I'm actually saying. If you've your head so far up your ass that you cannot help but equal 'Not Equal' as 'OMG RACIST!!!11', as opposed to 'Not Equal', which means nothing more and nothing less than 'Different', and says absolutely nothing whatsoever about hierarchical relationships, then frankly, you can't be helped. German shepherds are not equal to chihuahuas. Does that mean that everyone who insists that the two aren't equal is a dog-racist who prefers one over the other?

That's what you're saying, and it's retarded. If you want to debate ideology... Well, admittedly, NSG is exactly the right place for you. But ideology is not science. It is the intentional (Miss-)interpretation of factual data to suit one's worldview.

And if you wish to debate ideology, you've no right to pretend that you're really debating science (Though, like all ideologists, you'll do it, anyway). You're simply bullshitting on a grand scale, no different from a, say, white supremacist. Just from the other end of the spectrum.

3. Human differences DO NOT EQUAL racial differences. Repeat that until you get it.

I asked you before, and you still haven't replied. What are they?

4. Asked for proof that race is as meaningful as species, you offer nothing but your own semi-coherent ramblings. Not good enough.

I said race is as meaningful as every biological classification other than species, and only mildly less so than species, and I provided examples of the 'Species' classification itself not being anywhere near as clear-cut as people tend to believe. I'm not entirely clear why you expect me to provide proof for something I've never said outside of your vivid imagination.

5. Pray tell what are the "assorted [] criteria" by which we can reliably classify people by race?

Ever heard the term 'Anatomy'?

6. Asked to support your claim that "race is a 'useful' biological boundary" that does more good than harm, you offer only that we can predict a handful of seemingly insignificant information based on an individual's "race." Not responsive. Further, your assurance that we can make such predictions reliably is based on nothing but your own assertion.

Okay. Let me get this right. First, you're implying that whether something should be accepted as factual shouldn't be based on its factuality, but on whether it does more good that bad (A good case can be made that post-1890 physics should thus not be accepted, on account of arguably doing more bad than good). Secondly, you're implying that characteristics facilitating the survival of individuals in their local environment to the point where they resulted in significant phenotypical changes are 'Insignificant'.

Survival is insignificant. Reproductive fitness is insignificant.

You complained about me plain lol'ing. But you know what? I'll do it again.

lol

7. Asked to name the alleged "fair number of scientists" who believe race is a valid biologically determined classification, you lamely reply that, in your use of secondary sources, you find "race" is still being used. That is non-responsive. Also, I have a host of peer-reviewed studies on the misuse and/or inaccurate use of race in medicine and scientific research. Don't make me go there.

So, what you're saying is that the term 'Race' is in fact used in medical and scientific research, and you've a host of these peer-reviewed studies available?

Well, that answers your own question, doesn't it?

8. I did not misread the study. I fucking quoted it. You misread it.

Then why did you claim the study said something it, uh... Didn't say?

9. When a study flatly says (for example) "race is social construct, not a scientific classification," "genetic diversity in skin color ... cannot be used for purposes of classification," "[c]haracterizations of race are thus purely social constructs," and "racial distinctions ... are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful," it is NOT merely my interpretation of the study you are blithely dismissing. To say otherwise is delusional.

An article interpreting the studies other people have made is, sadly, not a study itself. It's doing exactly the same thing you do, and can consequently be criticised in the same fashion.

10. Feel free to provide links to Dawkins's work "making essentially all the points in favor of 'Race' [you] are making." Not my job to do your homework for you. And, by the way, Dawkins -- although I highly respect him -- (a) could be wrong on one subject and (b) doesn't exactly form an overwhelming scientific consensus on his own.

Yeah, because I should totally infringe copyright. What's so hard about spending some money to get it first hand?

Also, did it occur to you that not just Dawkins, but the people you're quoting (Actually, the people you're quoting who are summarising and interpeting studies of other people you've quoted who did no such thing) could be wrong, too? Just a thought.[/quote

]

Don't worry, I'll be getting back to you soon.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for that definition of race and criteria for categorizing individuals by race.

[Ryadn]

there are breeds of dog. Such as a bulldog, collie, greyhound and many more. If there are no human races by that logic there would also be no brreds of dog. They are instead all dogs.

That is one of the most ambitious leaps in logic I've seen yet. There are no breeds of chimpanzees---does that mean there are no breeds of cats? No, because they're different bloody species and one has got nothing to do with the other.

[Ryadn]

If race does not exist. Why do I as a North European:

1) Possess a different natural body odor than for example an Indian?
2) Why do I and my North European brethren on average possess brains that weigh a different size than for example south-east Asians? This extends to most other physical differences from eye shape to size as well.
3) If I am absolutely the same as a sub-Saharan African, who is a "pure" humanoid so to speak. Why do I and most of my fellow North Europeans possess recessive alleles for hair, eye and skin color whereas the afore-mentioned is unlikely to possess these mutations?


Race has it's purposes to draw the lines between these very apparent and noticable differences. Why are you so adamantly against it as a means of classification?

1) Agricultural differences incline people in certain geographies to different foods, which are processed differently in the body. Anyone who's ever eaten asparagus knows that.
2) The same reason most of the Germans in my family, who are from the far north, are fair-haired, while many other ethnic Germans from different regions are dark-haired. Do you believe Northern and Southern Germans are of different races?
3a) Who said you were "absolutely the same"? You're not absolutely the same as anyone, unless they've really started moving on human cloning. Phenotype differences are AVERAGES which result from a lack of gene flow between regions. In other words: low-level inbreeding. Simply because they are more common in certain geographies, it does not stand to reason that people in different locales must be of different 'races'. Furthermore, only 70% of genetic diversity in humans is found outside of Africa, while 100% of genetic variation is found within Africa.
3b) The traits you mention are specifically mentioned by those making a case for biological 'races' because the variation within them is highly visible. In other words, you choose traits which 'confirm' your theory, and ignore traits which do not.

[Tungookska]

zombie threads are a social construct without any scientific support

[Ryadn]

zombie threads are a social construct without any scientific support

Nova quoted the post in another thread. I didn't realize it was a different thread until I responded. Jesus.