I used two sites for identifying the locations of “sickle cell” (however we label it). One site described the locations in text. I cannot find that site at the moment. The other was a map (that, when I first looked this up over a year ago, agreed witht the text description). The map is found about 3/4 of the way down this page:
http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Adele/Chem222/Syllabus/Links/bindprotns/malaria.html
Wow, thanks Coll for putting some extremely real science behind my arguments.
IMO, lucwarm is missing the forest for the trees. He goes on and on about a statiscally corelation (very weak) supporting one of his descriptions of race. He’s forgetting what the word race implies, a population that is more internally related than it is to other populations. Since the science disproves that (sorry lucwarm, but it clearly and unambiguously does) you’re left with a very weak statistically anomoly that can be duplicated with other subpopulations.
If we are to continue to call this classification of yours “race” it needs to somehow map to genetic relationships. Since it clearly doesn’t, you’re left with a correlation that models, um, what exactly? Whatever it is, it’s clearly not race. If I can substitue tree frogs for North Africans and get the same results then we clearly aren’t mapping genetics.
Anyways, I’ve learned a lot, from this thread. I always do when Coll, tomanddeb, edwino and others get animated.
The problem is, you seem to be assuming that my position is that there is a weak correllation between race and genetic makeup and that therefore race exists. That’s not my position at all. I think it would be a useful exercise if you would try to summarize my position, and I’ll tell you if you have it right or not.
Anyway, I note that Collounsbury has finally asked me specific questions about my position rather than engage in his normal practice of (metaphorically) jumping up and down, waving his hands. I’ll be happy to take a crack at them, although it may be a few days.
**
What did you major in in college; what advanced degrees do you have, and in what subjects; and what is your current position?
Congratulations.
**
I’m not sure who you mean by “we,” but maybe you should re-read the web site that “you” have been referring to:
And here’s what you said about the site, just a few weeks ago:
**
Well, I think that these are important questions, particularly for those who would reject the concept of race. Obviously if you find them untinteresting, you shouldn’t bother discussing them on an internet message board.
It’s true that the question was scientifically difficult to answer; the point was that your argument implied that a difficult question had an easy answer. In any event, your argument would have more credibility if that were the first time you dodged a challenging question I put to you. It wasn’t.
**
That’s an interesting discussion, but I’m not sure what your point is. It doesn’t seem that you are trying to rule out the possibility of the “significant differences” that I mentioned earlier.
Emphasis added: Motherfucking Christ.
No, other people’s jobs in this debate ARE NOT TO SUMMARIZE FOR YOU for fuck’s sake. If you have a motherfucking position, you fucking lay it out in a clear manner, responding to the data and the science.
Telemark et al are not responsible for attempting to tease out something approaching a logical argument from someone else’s dodges.
You’re responsible for your own motherfucking “argument”.
Those questions were posed again, and again and again.
Throughout the motherfucking thread. You apparently can’t be bothered to read for motherfucking understanding. I raised the Telemark issue directly several times, I posed the issue of definition in the Data II reply, for example.
It’s all been there, all along.
It’s really none of your motherfucking business, but I have an undergraduate education in history, an MBA and my current position is with a large foreign pharma-bio group in strategic development for AMENASSA region. My education in matters genetic arise for my initial tasking a long time ago to bio-engineer/plant science folks to work on communicative issues, which has been part of my portfolio for a while.
I rec’d formal and informal on the job training in genetics, I am in short just the kind of non-scientist with science training that I have alluded to in my posts. I have taken the time and the care to learn about the science, the terminology, how indeed much of the work is done (Ah, the days of learning about PCRs and Western Blots, Edwino). If you read my interventions with the care you seem to think you have (although this strikes me as rather questionable insofar you seem to have reading comprehension issues) you would have noted my references to such. My knowledge of human genetics is purely on a personal basis, but built off of the substantive past experience. My presentations have stood for themselves - I don’t recall any of our posters who seem learned in the area, biology or genetics feeling I had misrepresented any of the science or that my summaries of primary literature were incorrect, although I am sure I have made an error here and there.
In the end, what counts here, bubbie, is one’s knowledge. You either display your command of a subject, or natter on about semantics and dodge substantive responses.
You want to call me a fraud, go right the fuck ahead. I could give a flying fuck. What I want to see an end to the dodging embodied in asking others to “summarize” your arguments, the utter absence of substantive argumentation and the sophistry of semantical quibbling about science and terminology you evidently have never bothered to gain an education in.
I apologize in advance if the following is not formatted properly. Below is the response by lucwarm to comments made by edwino:
Originally posted by edwino
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
lucwarm,
Well, since I put the aforementioned page together, I think you are being a bit disingenuous to edwino and others. Your above little snippet from my page fails to include the information immediately preceeding the “No” answer above. Here’s the very next sentence, for example:
I italicized the above senetence to emphasize the point that those dopers who have addressed the ‘race’ issue have addressed it from a biological/genetic perspective. At least, that’s been my understanding. I can’t seem to recall any of those who have been here debating the ‘race’ issue use the “races don’t exist” in any other context but the biological/genetic perspective.
The rest of my response in the FAQ is the basis for making the claim that “races don’t exist”. In addition, the “races do not exist” position is my position on the matter.
Look, I can understand why you may take issue with the “races do not exist” statement. (That is, if I’m understanding you correctly, you aren’t really sure was is really meant by the “races don’t exist” statement and have tried to address that in your own FAQ page). My position (that “races do not exist” from a biological/genetic perspective - again, my position) has been largely drawn from the information provided by those knowledgeable dopers who have addressed this issue repeatedly. I am in no way an expert, and it certainly is/was not my intention to mistate the position of those more knowledgeable than myself.
If you have issues/concerns about my position, I will certainly try to explain myself/clarify things.
Addendum:
From lucwarm’s FAQ
Hmm…maybe the following would be better if you substitute “race should not be used in science because of fuzziness and historical baggage” with:
“the concept of race as previously defined (the “classic” 3/5/60 races) in a biological/genetic context cannot be used in science because 1) it lacks coherency; 2) it lacks meaningful predictive value; 3) it does not accord with the available data/reality; 4) it is not robust and/or lacks parsimony (that is, does the concept help explain many related sub-phenomenon in a paritcular scientific mode of inquiry?); 5) it is unable to accord with scientific theories/concepts/data in other related scientific fields; 6) it is misleading; and 8) there are other concepts that better suit the issue/phenomenon under investigation”.
“Given this, and in keeping with the history of science as it pertains to those concepts having the same characteristics as above (i.e. phlogiston), the concept of race as previously defined (the “classic” 3/5/60 races) in a biological/genetic context will not be used in science. If the concept cannot (as outlined above) and will not be used (it logically follows that one will not use something that cannot be used), then as far as scientists are concerned and within the proper (i.e. biological/genetic) context, ‘race (as understood in the classical sense) doesn’t exist’.”
I already laid out my position and invited questions. The problem is that you and telemark don’t really understand what my position is.
For example, telemark earlier said the following:
My FAQ doesn’t offer any classification and doesn’t particularly defend the concept of race. Instead it attacks the statement that “race doesn’t exist” as ambiguous and potentially misleading. Please note that I answered “possibly” not “yes” to the question of whether race exists.
**
Please show me where somebody asked me to define the term “significant.” I’m not calling you a liar (yet), but I don’t recall seeing the question before you asked it.
I also note that I defined what I meant by “predictive value” a few posts before you asked the question.
**
I’m kind of curious - what’s your job title?
Anyway, here are my answers to your questions:
(1) Consistent with my earlier comment in this post, I am not going to offer a rigorous definition of race. As used in the FAQ I prepared, I mean it in the traditional sense - grouping people based on collections of external features, such as skin color, hair, facial features, etc.
(2) I defined what I meant by “predictive value” earlier. I’ll repeat it in case you missed it:
(3) What I mean by “significant differences” is the following: If you choose a physical feature that is capable of measurement (such as genital size) and there is a statistically significant difference in the size (or other measurement) of that feature among or between races, then there is a significant difference.
(4) This question is just an argument disguised as a question. My response is that, as noted before, you and telemark have totally missed the point of my argument; his comments are irrelevant. You and he seem to think I am arguing that race exists because it has predictive value as to various aspects of genetic makeup. That’s not my argument at all.
It’s interesting that you should make this point, because I actually considered (before reading your post) whether it was appropriate to include such a limited quote from your web site.
I think that it is appropriate, since it illustrates the ambiguity and potential to mislead of the statement that race does not exist. The fact that you (seem to) believe that qualification and explanation are necessary supports my point.
**
Well, when edwino stated that “we acknowledge that races exist,” I assumed he was looking at things from the biological/genetic perspective. If he wasn’t then he (arguably) should have made that clear.
Here’s what he said next:
**
Well, edwino seems to have adopted your position.
**
Cool.
**
Ok thanks.
**
When you say “meaningful predictive value” is that the same thing as what I meant by “predictive value,” or different? If it’s different, then what do you mean?
And what was number seven?!?! 
**
“cannot” goes a bit too far, IMHO. You might be able to convince me of “should not,” however.
I may have a few thoughts to add regarding your “phlogiston” metaphor. I’ll need to give it some thought.
Well, ain’t that fucking convenient. Nor, does it appear that any one of us, Edwino, Tom, Tamerlane, Telemark, etc. have grasped what your position is.
That would suggest, since the above are not posters known for their denseness, that you’ve (a) are inexplicably incapable of explaining your own position (b) deliberately obfuscated your position © have no real position and are just arguing for the entertainment (d) actually do not understand your own position.
I am frankly left speechless. Truly speechless.
I really don’t see the point, actually. It’s chock full of analytical and factual errors, and it merely illustrates some semantical psoturing then?
Use your own fucking eyes, fuck! I’ve already noted my messages - the ** entire goddamned issue ** revolves around the issue. When you fucking respond with some fucking substance, then I’ll waste some time indulging in your fucking game of dancing around words.
As for calling me a liar, go right the fuck ahead. No skin off of my fucking nose.
Apprentice Janitor. Hahhhahaha. Anymore fucking irrelevent try to sidetrack the discussion questions?
Answers… Not the noun I would apply.
This rather makes the entire conversation a farce then.
I didn’t miss it, argument clinic boy, it’s just it is painfully obvious that’s not a meaningful statement. Telemark has already pointed out the problem. And I elaborated, in detial with actual motherfucking data. Unless you define motherfucking meaningful categories, it’s nothing but GIGO - statistical artefacts, garbage in, gargabe out.
That is fundamental to the fucking analysis and fucking question.
See supra in re the issue of the grouping, proper definition of your categories etc.
In other words, some basic fucking literacy.
This is the closest thing I have ever seen, I think, to a pure Alice in Wonderland argument with the Queen.
It’s amazing how many times you do the same thing. Assert that our critiques are off base, but always dodge cleanly defining your point, your argument or laying out any of your bona fides.
Clever ploy, always leaves room to shift the goal posts, make vague statements about our precisely defined and supported arguments are … what? Too difficult for you? Whatever, this is like being trapped in the argument clinic. Precisely like being trapped in the argument clinic sketch. Ceasing to provide entertainment value now.
Ah, well, what the fuck. I might as well share some late night links for those who have some capacity to deal with data:
Further to the issue of Sickle Cell and racial diagnostics I provide some further online sourcing to help people visualize, as that first one was unsatisfying and Tom’s too limited.
First, an article, brief, on Sickle Cell occurrence in Italy, which struck me as interesting to illustrate a non-African region, although limited. The distribution map, regrettably does not give incidence of the trait as % of population, but incidence of actual disease. http://www.sicklecellsociety.org/resrep/res14.htm
Another trait map
http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/5/biology/mrc/7/page3.html and another; http://www.emory.edu/PEDS/SICKLE/childSSorigin.htm
and another; http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/biology/addnotes/eia2h/eia17_~1.pdf which is in fact a PDF with a discussion of the disease, with two smaller, older maps.
Further, an interesting article on sickle cell in India with incidence rates for trait carriers by specific groups. http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/india_scd.html I note that here we see wide variation, as in Africa, with some groups achieving rates similar to that highest rates found in Central Africa, 30-40% carrier rate.
Clearer presentation of Sickle trait distribution, Hbs distribution is appears:
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/marty/181/181Lectures/Figures/humangen/sgene.jpeg and somewhat differently as a superimposed map with malaria (w lower data resolution) here
http://www.ablongman.com/html/anthro/phys/databank/map2.18.html
and here, an engaging power point presentation with clearer map, unfortunately w/o supporting citation, but in general agreement: ecademy.agnesscott.edu/Biology/sp02bio/sp02bio100/Evolution.ppt to which I add http://www.dreamscape.com/biology/ApWeb/Evolutionmodern.pdf which on page 6 has a similar map of what I presume are current distributions, with citation. Regrettably it is hard to make out.
Note that the maps are not in perfect agreement as to distribution. As far as I can tell, w/o bothering to delve into the primary literature the differences arise from
(a) higher resolution of some maps in re incidence testing
(b) newer data, as the ‘grosser’ resolution maps seem to resolve from older (1960s) era data
© the degree to which variations of sickle cell causing traits are lumped or not lumped – there being regional variations on the trait, some apparently having arisen independently. One article indicated it appeared that sickle cell traits appear to have arisen independently no less then four times, indicating clear selection pressure in re malaria.
(d) The coverage of data from which some maps were developed, meaning some may be slightly defective in leaving out data by accident. Again, w/o delving independently into the primary literature it is hard to tell.
Leaving aside some variations in the maps, the general point, however, is clear.
Large portions of ‘Black’ Africa have incidence rates no different from those of significant portions of Europe-Near East-Central Asia-Sub-Continent where malarial zones historically existed, and vice-versa. Indeed for significant ‘Black’ populations there is an essential absence of the traits(*).
It is clear, and indeed the Slate article makes the point nicely in re that idiot bomb-thrower Entine, that using the old classical race concept is an exercise in futility if one wishes to developed an understanding of the structuring of human populations.
(*: By the way, I note the amusing title on this presentation (Scylla and Charybdis) from UNC School of Public Health, of some interest as it covers these issues although after a quick read I have reservations about phrasing etc www.minority.unc.edu/institute/2002/materials/ slides/Graves2-2002-06-17.ppt however, it does have a nice map with a clear citation. If one opens and edits the relevant slide one can get a better resolution.)
I confess, I really only had to share this because of the last one, the title amused me, for SDMB reasons.
Actually, I suspect that eponymous might understand. Earlier, he said “Look, I can understand why you may take issue with the “races do not exist” statement.”
And I suspect that Tamerlane probably understands my point of view pretty well.
I also would speculate that IzzyR understands my position, given that much of it was informed by his insights.
Frankly, you and telemark seem pretty clueless however.
**
I am quite aware of that. (yeah, yeah it’s a cheap shot, but I couldn’t resist!!)
**
Please show me EXACTLY where I was asked to define “significant” (before your request).
**
Look, I thought you were raising the issue of credentials. Earlier, you seemed to be arguing that because I am an attorney, my opinion counts for less. So what’s your job title?
Anyway, I’m not going to bother responding to the rest of your nonsense. The argument you keep trying to make is simply irrelevant to my point. It amuses me, however, how you (seem to) see your argument as a sort of all-purpose response to any point I might make. It feels a bit like I’m arguing with ELIZA.
Amusing. Stupid, but amusing.
Understanding you want to quibble about ‘race’ and and ‘take issue’ with a statement is not the same thing as having an actual argument, in the sense of some logical propositions.
I can understand how you might “take issue” with evolution, that’s same thing as then advancing an argument critiquing evolution. You might have a “point of view” but a “point of view” ain’t a fucking logical argument or critique.
One is a mere sentiment, inchoate sensation that a new piece of evidence, theory, etc. has overturned a precious little corner of dusty ignorance. The mewling of ignorance.
The other is an actual substantive critique, something worthy of our attention.
As for Izzy, he’s not someone who’s brought anything to the table here other than the counterfactual suspicion that if race were not used that population differences would be missed, so I really could care less.
Yes, I know. Semantics, word games, posturing. Anything but a substantive argument.
What’s the motherfucking point, argument clinic boy? So you can quibble? I ain’t wasting my time holding your hand, you can’t be bothered with replies of substance but mere vague, data & science assertions.
Tell you what, you come up with a coherent argument, clear, precisely defined statements as to what your point is, supported by relevant evidence or data addressing the critiques and explaining in a substantive manner how they do or do not address your argument, and I’ll be happy to catalogue your sins in re the argument.
I stated that in order to advance an argument in this area, one has to have a basic literacy. I also noted your entire argument has been word games. Nothing to the data, nothing to the science. A lawyer game. If you can’t be bothered to educate yourself, yes your opinion is in fact utterly worthless. Not because you’re a lawyer, however regretable that fact may be, but because you’re arguing from ignorance, and apparently deliberately so.
Title, Apprentice Janitor. Heheh. Or maybe shop steward. Or perhaps sous-directeur adjoint de strategie, region AMOASS. Or Assistant Bastard in Chief or chef d’enculement fondamental et strategique, region AMOASS or some other nonesense.
Doesn’t matter, what matters is the data, and the analysis on the data. Show where its wrong, you’re in business. Can’t. Well, posture, argue semantics, blither on.
I’m making your ignorance an issue, not your fucking profession per se.
In other words, again, no substance.
Let’s see.
Fails to respond to the issue of proper use of statistics.
Fails to define his categories, or provide a hint of a justification as to why one would use undefined bullshit like the classical races of popular parlance, using mere phenotypical information -hair and skin color- (which gets us to a really idiotic position of lumping totally divergent populations).
Fails to clearly explicate a critical argument addressing the specifics. In other words a convincing reason not dismiss his wastage of electrons as anything but someone just squeeling “I don’t think so, I don’t think so” over and over. (Simple assertion that something is not relevant fails, my dear boy,
Empty posturing.
Coll: Thanks for the malaria numbers. I’ll go through them in the next few days, as I am really interested in the genetics of the Bantu migration and so forth.
lucwarm:
You are obfuscating here – distorting our words, taking them out of context, reading arguments where none exists. You will not pin down your points, you will not elaborate your views, you will only barely define your terms. You appear to be debating here simply for the point of debating, and trying to “win” the debate on technicalities and distortion.
I have said probably fifty times over the course of a dozen debates that I agree that race is a meaningful sociologic term. People self-identify, and that (depending on sociologic circumstances) implies a bunch of things. Yet you argue against me for saying that “race doesn’t exist” (which I have never argued). You have to resort to obfuscation to show that I have said that.
In this thread, you have done it quite glaringly, and eponymous rightly called you out on it:
As eponymous pointed out, this is obfuscation because the rest of the site is entirely devoted to showing that races don’t exist from a scientific point.
Now, you have done it again.
Yaaaaaaaaargh. Obfuscation. You imply that now I support your argument because I said “we acknowledge races exist.” Even though my next sentence was “they aren’t useful scientifically,” you say that since I said that races exist, I must mean they exist genetically/biologically. Genetics and biology are science, bub. And I can’t possibly support your argument, because your argument doesn’t exist. Because you have done the equivalent of asking us “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” You chide us for saying races don’t exist, but we have mostly been very careful at qualifying that statement. And we mean what we say – they are not useful scientific classification schemes. We don’t use them in science. They are not valid classification schemes. And therefore, since we can’t resolve races using genetics or biology, we say that scientifically, they don’t exist. That’s it. In Hebrew, zeh hoo zeh. Finito.
Edwino, pleasure to provide substance, solid points upon which we can prove or dissprove.
I noted I fucked up with some lack of clarity, so clarifications in bold where I skipped key words:
Of course, we all know what the response will be. More requests that we summarize his argument, more dodging of actually laying out his argument so he can be pinned down.
Imprecision, dodging, obfuscation.
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
Well, the whole point of the information in the FAQ was to support my position (i.e. that races don’t exist from a biological/genetic perspective). If I just had the Q: “Do races exist; A: No” and nothing more then I can see why someone might object. I’ve probably not stated the case for my position to your liking, though.
Well, I understood what he meant. As far as scientists are concerned, given that the concept isn’t really useful, coherent, and a bunch of other things, then it doens’t exist.
I suspect (although I could be wrong) your point is in trying to take the argument towards deeper philosophical issues pertaining to ontology, epistemology, and the like. Frankly, I don’t think that’s been the intention of those who have been debating the issue.
Meaningful in the statistical sense that holds up over repeated testing and bias is accounted for either in the data or the statistical method used. In addition, it needs to accord with other elements (like some of the items I listed in my addedum to your FAQ). You may well obtain meaningful predictive results using the concept of race and genital size, for example, but one needs to account for whether the concept of race (as defined in the classical sense) has any bias/problems with it. If it does have problems, then it’s back to square one.
Sorry, I probably haven’t explained myself very well.
Well, I suppose it’s a matter of degree (or semantics). “Should not” implies a choice, whereas “cannot” does not. And if you’ve effectively taken away all possible choices, then I think cannot is the better term.
I got the phlogiston metaphor from another poster in this thread. But as I mentioned earlier, I suspect this may be one of your intentions regarding the whole “races don’t exist” issue. That is, delving into the “meaning” of the concept/term (race or races don’t exist), its ontological/epistimolgical aspects, how the term/concept relates to the philosophy of science, and the like.
In any event, I have seen nothing to indicate that eponymous, Tamerlane, or IzzyR do not understand my position. Thus, your earlier argument - that there must be something wrong with my position because so many people do not understand it - remains unsubstantiated.
**
It’s funny that you of all people should say this. By your own standards, this makes you the prince of word games.
**
My point is that you (falsely) claimed that I had been asked a particular question “again, and again and again.” True, it’s not a substantive issue, however, YOU raised it.
It’s simple really - if you don’t like being called on your false statements, then stop making them.
Anyway, I’m not goint to bother responding to the rest of your blather and conclusory hand-waving. Again and again, you have presented a bunch of assertions without explaining how they contradict my position. You and telemark seem to have totally missed the boat.
No. when you said “we acknowledge that races exist. We just don’t acknowledge that they are useful scientific categorization schemes,” I read it to mean you were saying that “races may exist (from a scientific perspective), but are not a useful concept (from a scientific perspective).” This is a totally reasonable reading of your words.
If you were drawing two distinctions - between existence and usefulness, AND between biology and sociology, then you should have said so. Or, at a minimum, not accused me of obfuscation when I assumed you were making only one distinction.
**
That’s nonsense. I offered many times to answer questions about my position, and have so answered many questions. If you are unsatisfied with any of my answers, you should feel free to ask (non-argumentative) followup questions.
You on the other hand have ignored challenging questions about your position more than once.
**
I thought that you were drawing a distinction between existence and usefulness. See above.
IMHO, the statement is at least a little misleading. And the concept is abused by some.
**
Want to take another shot? Or at least explain what you mean by “bias/problems”?
**
What choices do you mean when you say “all possible choices”? Are you saying it’s impossible to “do” science using race?
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
Well, I’ll try…
Let’s start with defining race and let’s use (one of) the classic definition of race. That is, there are three distinct races and each is defined by certain morphological characteristics (skin color, eye cole, haircolr/texture, and the like).
So we now have a working definition of race. OK - fine. Now let’s run some studies using this definition. Say race and genital size. We gather the data, run various statistical analyses and come up with results. We find that, for example, on average “negroids” have larger genitals than “caucasians” who in turn have larger genetials than “mongloids”. OK, fine - we have results. In this limited instance, we have meaningful results (this is assuming that no other studies have been done using the above definition of race).
OK - now other people start to conduct studies using our above definition of race to help answer other questions. Data is collected, statistical methods/analyses are done, and conclusions are drawn. More meaningful results are obtained and all is fine. All (or most) of the studies appear to indicate that our conceptualization of race is valid (I should note that this was the case for a long time in science regarding race).
As has been the case over the last 300-400 years, science progresses. New data becomes available, as well as new methods in analyzing data. This is great, as far as scientists are concerned, because it allows them to ask (and explore) more questions. It also allows them to analyze and revisit previous research, just on the chance that there were problems in that previous research.
Well, in using our definition of race to account for the genetic composition of the races, a curious thing happens. What we find is that the genetic composition of our “races” doesn’t adhere to our definition. OK - no problem at first. Maybe there’s a problem with the data. Or the methods we used. So we start conducting other studies/tests. We conduct studies using other data. Our definition of race has worked so well for so long, something is wrong. Must be the data or the methods being used.
However, over time, with more data becoming available and more studies being conducted, it’s beginning to look like our original definition of race might be faulty. There are attempts to account for the disparity of data and studies by modifying the original definition. Instead of 3 we now have 5 (or 20 or 60).
However, as additional data is uncovered and additional studies are being conducted that make a shambles of our conceptualization of race, one (being a good scientist) is forced to abandon the former defintion and start over again. Either by reconceptualizing “race” or abandon it all together.
So we started out with a conceptialization of race that worked for a while, but over time, with additional studies and data, we are forced to account for the additional studies and data. And that’s exactly what scientists have done with “race”. Our conceptualization may have worked/been useful for a time, but now it doesn’t.
I should point out that it is entirely possible (and I’m pretty sure a few other dopers have said as much) that with more data/studies that our previous conceptualization of race can be revisited. Maybe not in the same exact fashion, but old concepts/theories are “kept around” just on the off chance that they may become useful again. If out conceptualization of something doesn’t fit/accord with the data/studies, then one needs to examine the conceptualization (of course, after making sure it’s not the data/methods that are at fault).
We’re now starting to enter the realm of ontology/epistimology and the philosophy of science. That is, if we had a conceptualization of race that “worked” for a long time but now doesn’t accord with what we currently know, did it “really exist” in the first place? If it did, then where did it go? If it didn’t, then why were we deluded into thinking that it existed for a long time?
(think phlogiston, the ether, and other “entities” - Do they/did they exist?)
If this is one of your intentions, I’m afraid I’m going to have to back out. As far as I’m concerned, we’d be enetering very murky territory that even scientists are somewhat reluctant to enter. Better to bring in the philosophers who have dealt with ontological/epistemological issues.
It’s not impossible to “do” science with race (in the classical sense however defined). But it is impossible to do “good” science (biological/genetic) today with the classical conceptualization of race. That’s my opinion, which I’m sure most other scientists would agree.
I’m not sure what you mean by that (although I think I have a decent guess). In any event, you seem to have wandered away from the question I asked you - which was to explain what you meant by “meaningful predictive value.” It sounds like you are conceding that race might satisfy the second item in the list of criteria that you posted, but nonetheless reject the concept because of the other six items.
**
If that’s the case, then IMHO it’s a bit of an overstatement to claim that race doesn’t exist. Yes, this is more of a philisophic issue than a scientific issue.
I again note the potential for abuse of the “no race” concept - there are those who would use it to suggest that the “meaningful results” you mentioned earlier cannot exist/shouldn’t be discussed/etc.
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
Well, I told you I would try…I didn’t say I would be successful 
Yes, race might satisfy the second item, but one would nevertheless reject it because of the other items. And I think that many scientists would insist the you should/have to/must reject it (which qualifier you chose depends on various factors and probably hinges on philosophical issues I really don’t feel qualified to go into).
Possibly - I suppose then it’s a bit of an overstatement to make the following claim:
Q: “Does the sun evolve around the Earth?”
A: “No”
evidence/explanation to support the above position
Well, I don’t think anyone is saying that it shouldn’t/can’t be discussed (as evidence by this and many other threads). It’s just that if you do want to discuss “race”, then you better be prepared to account for the current data/studies that don’t accord with the classical definition.
Either the current data/studies are problematic or the original conceptualization of race is problematic (or possibly both). I can’t recall anyone bringing to the various race threads on this message board evidence that there are problems with the current data/studies on the issue. What has been attacked/pounded into submission by Collounsbury, edwino, tomndebb, and many others is the original conceptualization of race. It just doens’t accord with what is currently known in biology, genetics, and the like.
Paraphrasing Jonny Cochrane: “If the concept doesn’t fit, you must acquit (get rid of it)”
The race/genital size study is only meaningful if our original definition of race holds up. Again, this was the case in science for quite some time. If there is other data/studies which render the definition problematic, then how meaningful “really” is the race/genital study? You can simply ignore all the data/studies that makes your original definition of race problematic, but then you need to ask yourself if you are really doing science.