you seem to
[shrug] If race is a social construct, then any system of racial classification should strive to reflect the socially-defined categories; like the U.S. Census does, and for sociopolitically important reasons.
So 200 years ago, the system classifying ‘negroes’ as subhuman was just fine because it reflected socially defined categories?
But, I do agree with part of what you say. Race is a social construct. It has no scientific validity.
Point is, those categories are usually not defined very well and when they are, do not impart any useful information about genotype.
:shrug: You seem to have a different definition of the word “liar” from me. Even putting aside that my statement is correct, if somebody asserts a general conclusion about a controversial issue, it would not occur to me to characterize their statement as a lie – even if I completely disagree with them.
And of course my statement was indeed correct, which I can demonstrate pretty easily if you care to lay out the specific criteria by which you (presumably) reject “race” as a set of categories. Put another way: How do I know if a set of categories has “scientific validity”?
Sure. What I meant is that the use of racial categories as any kind of biological classification system (which is what the so-called “race realists” keep trying to defend) is absolutely pointless if it doesn’t provide reliable information about genetic relationships.
For racial categories used as a social classification system, as you note, that requirement is unnecessary and irrelevant.
I actually laughed out loud at this.
It isn’t that you said something I disagree with. It’s that you made a statement you know to be untrue.
What other categories exhibit more variation within a category than between two categories.
I think what I just said will do for now. There must be greater variation between two categories than within a category. That isn’t the sole criterion but it will do for a start
Nonsense, it’s true and I believe it 100%.
:shrug: The difference in height between the tallest man and the shortest man is far greater than the difference in average height between men and women.
Or are you measuring variation in some other way? If so, how?
But height is not a defining characteristic of sex. I gave those in the GD thread that started this-
Chromosomes
Genitalia and reproductive organs
brain (specifically the bed of the hypothalmus)
:shrug: the difference in BMI between the most and least obese people (among the obese) is surely far more than the difference in average BMIs between obese people and non-obese people.
Why would anyone want a “term” for separate, discrete groups as though they were part of one group? In Africa, among people who would be called “black” if they lived in the U.S., are several separate groups. Why would we want a term, (in biology), to lump them together whjen they are not “together” in any biological sense. The same holds true for “Asians/Orientals” or “Caucasians/Whites” with multiple populations who are not closely related. Aside from a general geographic allusion, there does not seem to be any reason to give them a collective term. Particularly when we are discussing biological situations, there is simply no reason to come up with such labels. Giving large, disparate groups single labels is simply a way to cause confusion by implying that there is some commonality that does not actually exist. It is misleading.
From Wikipedia
and
I’m not sure what your point is here. Is it your position that {obese people} is not a scientifically valid category?
And if not, is it because it fails your variation test, or for some other reason?
It is my position that the category {obese people} as defined by BMI is not a scientifically valid category.
Read the second bit I quoted from Wikipedia. It’s full of weasel words AND also comes right out and says
If the category doesn’t lead to accurate data, what good is it?
So can I take it that you categorically reject all scientific studies which are based on this classification?
I’m not sure I understand your point, but I think I can simplify things with another example.
Do you also reject {people with hypertension} as a valid scientific category?
More accurate to say that I am somewhat skeptical of them
what gotcha are you trying to spring here I wonder?
Just so we are clear, a scientific study which is based on scientifically invalid categories is not per se invalid . . . it’s simply cause for skepticism of the study . . . is that what you are saying?
It appears that {people with hypertension} fails your variation test. So by your reasoning, {people with hypertension} is not a valid scientific category. But I would like to know where you stand.
I said the variation rule was not the sole criterion.
A blood pressure reading in the hypertension range is a reliable indicator of risk for various future problems. Accurate and reliable predictions can be made from the category.
And you also said this:
(my bolding)
So, according to what you said earlier, any categorization which fails your variation test is NOT a valid scientific category. Are you abandoning this position now?
So you agree then that {people with hypertension} IS a valid scientific category?
And just so we are clear, you are saying that a scientific study which is based on scientifically invalid categories is not per se invalid . . . it’s simply cause for skepticism of the study . . . right?
Now you’re putting words in my mouth, saying I hold a position I never said I held, and JAQing off.
I think we’re done here.