No, that’s not what I’m saying. Could you quote whatever it is I posted that made you think that’s what I’m saying?
Hey sturmy! 
It’s been absolutely ages since we chatted, hon. I hope all’s well with you. Thank you ever so much for pointing out my etiquette gaff. I’ll get to it right away, but before I do, here’s a sunflower for you. [celestina gives sturmhauke a sunflower.]
[celestina goes over to Algernon and gives him a handful of wildflowers.] I hope you and your missus enjoy them, Sugar. I picked them all by myself. Honest. [innocent eyes]
[celestina then goes and picks some more wildflowers and offers them to edwino, tomndebb, eponymous, Collounsbury, & Telemark]
I’ll admit that I’m a little upset that no one in this debate has argued the importance of the rat race. :mad: edwino in particular ought to be ashamed of himself on this score because he could have fit the rat race nicely into his latest explication of the notion of “argument” and “series of contradictions.” But, I’ll forgive y’all just this once because y’all fellas just are so cute when you’re arguing, and I don’t want to hear anything to the contrary on that score. [giggle]
lucwarm, I admit that I’m a bit confoosed. You say you’re a lawyer, but I have to wonder how long a judge would put up with the “argumentative skills” you’ve displayed thus far in this thread. [sigh] I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but your contributions to this thread have given me a such a bad headache that I’ve had to go lay down every time I’ve read something you’ve posted.
[celestina offers lucwarm a book on basic argumentation and logical fallacies.]
I hope this will help you. Well, y’all. It’s been interesting. I’ve got to go earn a living. Ta-ta.
Flowers for Algernon. How sweet.
Thanks celestina (and for the suggestion sturmhauke).
This doesn’t make muchg sense. Several days ago, you objected to a post of mine in which I limited the population of the supposed black race to individuals from two South African cities on the grounds that I was applying added restrictions to the definition. (Our original exchange was lost in the crash.)
Here, you appear to be claiming some argumaent for race based on sociological phenomena. Yes, the people matching types are identifying people by “race” (or, at least, ethnicity, since Hispanic might be either white or American Indian–or even black), however, they are working in an environment in which they have already preselected a smaller group from within the larger body identified as “black.” They are addressing a U.S. audience discussing U.S. population groups. Since the overwhelming majority of people imported to slaves in the U.S. came from a limited region of Africa (and then intermarried heavily within that group, mixing whatever various separate ethnic associations they had), and have since intermariied with both whites and American Indians (creating a population that does not even look like the African group from which it was first taken) we can now find a certain amount of common traits within that group.
That hardly justifies a extrapolation back to biological race. It is a sociological identification that relies on sociological movements of groups to establish a coherence that would not be justified if extended to the whole of the African continent. If you suddenly threw a bunch of Kenyan or South African college students into the NMDP pool, they would not provide any better matching to American blacks than any other group.
This statement
would be more accurate if it had said
“For example, if I were looking for an organ donor in the U.S., I might use the sociological identity of race for the first cut, and then genetic tests after that.”
Even if we changed
to
it still would not make a lick of sense.
Genetic matching is just about 100% reliable. What reason would you have for superceding a test with 100% reliability with-- I don’t know what lucwarm is going for here. It seems the only thing that preselecting by race would do would be to make sure a black person doesn’t get Asian bone marrow, even if it is a perfect match.
Post your definition of race and my confusion will go away. I was trying to make some sense of your otherwise inconsistant arguement.
As it stands, I see nothing in your arguement so far that would exlude the classification of the Lefty race.
Agree.
**
Pretty close, with one little issue that I will come back to shortly.
**
I’m not sure who you mean by “our,” but I basically agree.
**
1
**
Well, some classification schemes are a better fit with reality than others.
**
As long as somebody knows about it, then it exists in a technical sense. (IMHO).
**
The following is acceptable to me:
For the many reasons expressed in these threads, the concept of race is of limited use in science. One can imagine that the usefulness of race will decrease further in the future.
What’s abusive is when people use the “race doesn’t exist” concept to suggest or imply that “significant differences” (as I have defined that term) cannot exist.
So the chain of reasoning I see is as follows:
(1) Race is not useful —> (2) Race does not exist --> (3) significant differences cannot exist.
The first step - from (1) to (2) - is a bit of an overstatement. The second step - from (2) to (3) - is the “abuse” I have been complaining about.
Feel free to quote me and describe (in a civil manner) which logical fallacy you think I have committed. Believe it or not, I will try to assess your argument objectively and admit it if I’m wrong.
Actually, the first step - from 1 to 2 - is either true or false depending on your definition of race. If it’s the socialogical construct as applied to the black race in America, then the statement is clearly false. No one here disagrees with this.
On the other hand, if a race is a vast grouping of people that share similar genetic make-up and close genetic similarity, then it is true, the science is unambiguous.
So, I repeat, give us your definition of race so we can discuss this. Until you do that, you’re just blowing smoke.
The second part, from step 2 to 3, is meaningless without a definition of race. Science clearly states that small genetic differences can exist in populations, many significant. But without a definition of race, you’re not going to be able to prove (or even discuss) your point.
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
Sorry - I probably should have said human beings
OK - I think I understand your position now.
Would the following statment be a distortion of your (above) position?
“Given that the current understading in biology/genetics renders the concept of race (as classically defined) virtually useless, scientists, as a pratical matter, view the concept of race (in the classical sense) as meaningless. Therefore, as a practical matter, the concept of race (as classically defined and in the context of biology/genetics) is viewed by the scientific community as having no “real” existence. (That is, the concept doesn’t adhere/correspond to what is actually known about reality). As a result of this view, scientific studies in biology/genetics that use the concept of race (as classifcally defined) are, as a pratical matter, not recognized by the scientitic community as legitimate and valid.”
Or am I getting closer to a postion that you would find acceptable?
*Originally posted by eponymous *
“Given that the current understading in biology/genetics renders the concept of race (as classically defined) virtually useless, scientists, as a pratical matter, view the concept of race (in the classical sense) as meaningless. Therefore, as a practical matter, the concept of race (as classically defined and in the context of biology/genetics) is viewed by the scientific community as having no “real” existence. (That is, the concept doesn’t adhere/correspond to what is actually known about reality). As a result of this view, scientific studies in biology/genetics that use the concept of race (as classifcally defined) are, as a pratical matter, not recognized by the scientitic community as legitimate and valid.”
Hmmm…on re-reading the above, I think the follow is closer to what I’m trying to say:
“Given that the current understanding in biology/genetics renders the concept of race (as classically defined) virtually useless, as a practical matter, the concept of race (as classically defined) is viewed by the scientific community as having no “real” existence (that is, the concept doesn’t adhere/correspond to what is actually known about reality). As a result of this view, scientific studies in biology/genetics that use the concept of race (as classically defined) are, as a practical manner, meaningless and not recognized as legitimate and valid.”
lucwarm, I’ll follow up with more questions and points later…
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
OK, to continue…
So it’s your position that concepts/classification schemes exist by virtue of humans defining them. That is, concepts are a product of the human intellect. I agree with this.
All kinds of concepts/classifications can exist, from the ridiculous to the non-ridiculous. That is, humans can create all kinds of concepts and classification schemes. I agree with this.
However, even though humans can create all kinds of concepts/classification schemes, some concepts/classification schemes are more useful than others. That is, while all kinds of concepts/classification schemes can exist (by virtue of humans creating them), some of those concepts/classification schemes are better able to “do” things than other concepts. I agree with this.
Now comes the tricky part…
When one states that a concept/classification scheme is more useful than another, what is meant by useful? That is, by what criteria do people use to determine the usefulness of a concept/classification scheme?
Well, one way in determining the usefulness of a partiular concept/classification scheme is by conducting studies/experiments to determine whether the concept/classification scheme accurately mirrors/corresponds/coheres to phenomena that are real - i.e has a tangible existence (that is, what is real is predicated primarily on what can be detected by the senses).
Scientists, one group who often conducts studies/experiments, are principally concerned with studying phenomena that are real (i. e. - have a tangible existence). Scientists create/have created a multitude of concepts/classification schemes to assist in the study of real phenomena and in the accumulation of accurate knowledge about real phenomena. When a concept/classification scheme mirrors/corresponds/coheres closely to real phenomena, scientists view that concept/classification scheme as useful. When a concept/classification is viewed as useful, scientists view studies/reasearch that use the concept/classification scheme as meaningful. If a concept/classification scheme is viewed as useful and the studies conducted using the concept/classification scheme are viewed as meaningful, then it means that scientists can conduct further studies using the concept/classification scheme to obtain additional knowledge of real phenomena. After all, a major goal (if not the major goal) of science is to obtain accurate knowledge of real phenomena.
On the other hand, if a concept/classification scheme does not closely mirror/correspond/cohere to real phenomena, then scientists view the concept/classification scheme as not useful. If scientists view a concept/classification scheme as not useful, then any studies using the (non-useful) concept/classification scheme will be viewed by scientists as meaningless. So, if a concept/classification scheme is viewed as not useful, and the results obtained using the concept/classification are viewed as meaningless, scientists should not (and in all likelyhood will not) use the concept/classification scheme to obtain additional, accurate knowledge of real phenomena.
So, to modify the chain of reasoning you’ve provided above, I see is thusly:
(1) Race (as a concept) is not useful to scientists in biology/genetics—> (2) Race (as a concept) is not useful/is meaningless to scientists in biology/genetics because it does not mirror/correspond/cohere to real phenomena—> (3) Race (as a real phenomenon) does not exist --> (3) To scientists, if race is not a real phenomenon, then significant differences (in races)cannot exist.
Is the above chain of reasoning acceptable?
My objection was that you were making a statement that was (possibly) true but in any case irrelevant.
**
I’m making an argument about the utility of using race. It may very well be true that if you are trying to locate people with the Sickle Cell Anemia allele in Capetown, race may not help you in your search. So what. I’m sure that there are many imagineable situations where it would be pointless to use race as a proxy.
**
Maybe so, but so what? Again, I’m merely pointing out a situtation where considering race might have some use. Do you agree that such situations can arise?
And do you see that pointing out situations where race lacks such use doesn’t really undermine the point?
**
Ok, but again - so what? If we let M represent a genetic match, and R represent the condition that the potential donor and recipient are the same race - let’s say Oriental - then it seems to me that
P(M|R) > P(M).
Thus, in a world of finite resources where it costs money to urge people to submit to testing, and testing itself costs money, there is some sense in targeting these resources.
The reason is that “genetic matching” involves greater costs. It also costs resources to convince people to submit to testing. In a world with finite resources, then, there may be some sense in targeting those resources even if the aim is not excellent.
Disagree. It depends more on what it means to “exist.”
**
Again, disagree. The issue posed by the chain of reasoning I laid out is not whether significant differences exist, but whether the purported nonexistence of race rules out the possibility of such differences.
In any event, as far as defining race goes, what’s wrong with the statement I made on page two of this thread?
Well, human beings do not always devise (or even know about) classification schemes collectively. How long has the Chinese zodiac existed? Since long before those cute placemats made the rounds in New York City.
**
I basically don’t object, although (1) there may be room for debate over just how useless race is; (2) the way you seem to be using the word “meaningless” may be a little misleading and in any event doesn’t seem to square with the way you were using the word “meaningful” earlier when you conceded that race might have meaningful predictive value; and (3) I object to “real existence” for the same reasons expressed earlier.
I would also ask you to explain what you mean by “adhere/correspond to what is actually known about reality” and describe how one could test whether a particular classification scheme adheres or corresponds to what is actually known about reality. I think if you do that, it may help expose a deeper weakness in your above statement.
I think it would be helpful if you would describe a specific experiment that would test whether a “concept/classification scheme accurately mirrors/corresponds/coheres to phenomena that are real.”
No. See my above objection to the word “meaningless” and my objection to looking at classification schemes in terms of existence and nonexistence. Most importantly, given the way you have defined existence, the last step does not follow from the second-to-last step.
Just to repeat a bit from my previous post, I would ask you to explain what you mean by “adhere/correspond to what is actually known about reality” and describe how one could test whether a particular classification scheme adheres or corresponds to what is actually known about reality. I think if you do that, it may help expose a deeper weakness in your (apparent) position.
OK, this is the closest thing to a definition that you have posted. I still contend that it’s not a definition of race, or sufficient information to discuss this issue since anyone can pick and define races based on this criteria. Here are my issues:
-
Using the “traditional sense” you end up with huge problems. Are Australian Aboriginals in the same race as southern African Blacks? How about children of mixed marriages, some light skinned some dark skinned? How about the genetic evidence that shows that these peoples aren’t close genetically? You are making socialogical groupings, nothing wrong with that, but don’t try to say that it’s biological.
-
I can show the exact same predictive value based on different groupings, either Redhead or Lefty. Or by adding my Lithuanian Farmers instead of north African Blacks. Therefore, since your “traditional sense” of grouping is completely arbitrary, my choice of race is exactly as valid as yours. And mine is, on it’s face, unrelated to the underlying biology.
-
Handwaving, anything you can measure doesn’t really amount to much.
-
Well break my arm and call me Lefty, what are you arguing? That the classical definitions of race have some predictivie value? It’s pretty clear that ANY collection of peoples will have some predictive value. If you are using the term “race” you need to show that there is some underlying genetic relationship that supports what you say.