“Some people get all worked up over the use of the term “race.” This study looks at people in different genetic clusters, and we aren’t using the term “race” for those clusters because we don’t want to piss these people off.”
In other words, Gigo, you are using that quote as if it refutes what Chen is saying, but it actually supports it. These scientists are classifying people into different genetic clusters and then doing science based on that. They just aren’t calling them “races.”
Do you know that you and **Max the Vool ** have been claiming that race has a basis in biological science?
Do you understand that science is contingent on an ability of all observations to be replicated by any interested party?
Do you understand that when an observation can be replicated by any interested party, that is the very definition of objective?
If you knew this then you would realise that you have been claiming that race has an objective basis.
I understand that science is not your strong suit, but for future reference, as soon as you claim that anything has a scientific basis then you are, by definition, claiming that it has am objective basis. You are claiming a whole lot else as well, but one of the things that you are claiming is an objective basis.
“*Race is a biological term used to describe subspecies of organisms.
*The physical variation in humans, though perhaps seemingly great, is genetically minimal.
*During the history of humanity, populations have never been isolated long enough to become true biological races”
Your say so of “This study looks at people in different genetic clusters, and we aren’t using the term “race” for those clusters because we don’t want to piss these people off.”" is an “appeal to the people” it is a fallacious argument.
One quote from me should suffice to prove that. Please provide it or admit you were wrong.
So if someone wanted to study whether how much TV a person watches affects some other variable, and they decided to put people into three groups (none, less than 2 hours a day, more than 2 hours a day), then any study of those groups “isn’t science”? What do you think “science” is exactly?
The bolded part above may be the crux of our disagreement. All I’ve been saying in this thread is that people can be put into groups in accordance with their genes, and we can call those groups “races” if you want to. It seems you have in mind some definition of “race” that you feel is the accepted biological definition of race.
Well, if there is such a thing, I’m not talking about it, and it’s existence doesn’t affect anything I’ve said. If all you care about is that definition of race, then you win, and we’ve been talking at cross purposes.
The term “race” is not scientific, simply because it is difficult to define who belong to what subset of humans.
The term “genetical distance”, however, it is quite objective, and can be measured between any two individuals, regardless from where they are from.
So you are arguing that if two geographically disparate groups have “externally visible” “distinct and measurable differences” in addition to other difference that are not “externally visible”, that is evidence that the two groups are biological racial groups?
Is that a correct summation of your argument?
My immediate family has “externally visible” “distinct and measurable differences” from at least one family in Spain or in India. Agreed?
Our families will also have other difference that are not “externally visible”. Agreed?
So are you arguing that each family is a biological racial group?
I said before that the popular version is not much of concern of mine. There is only a problem when people ignore what is going on in scientific circles or academia and attempt to deny that there are reasons why they do like they do.
And that is even a small problem, compared to the spectacle this would be if the people of faith had grabbed on this issue like they did with creationism or ID in the schools and academia. As it is, there are no serious efforts to harass the scientists on this field for thinking “funny”.
Blake, why have you chosen “debate by hostile interrogation” as your tactic?
Do you think it’s effective?
Do you think that maybe it would be better if you actually read people’s posts and tried to understand what they were saying (instead of just assuming)?
Right there you said that people can be grouped into classifications called “races” based upon science.
WTF?
I don’t think you understand what “objective” means. Data is objective if it is based upon real-world observations. This is as opposed to subjective data which exists only within the mind. Since the TV, the viewers and the device for measuring local time all exist in the physical world, and since it is is trivially easy to observe how much time someone spends watching TV, such data measurements are objective, by definition.
Look, dude, the SDMB is all about fighting ignorance, but at this stage the extent of your ignorance is distracting from the topic of this thread. If you want to start another thread about what science is and what “objective” means and the difference between “subjective” and “categorical”, then please do so. I, and many others more knowledgeable than I, will be happy to enlighten you. But at this stage it is clear that you have no idea what science is *or *what objective means. As such you are no more than a distraction from the topic at hand.
Start the new thread, and when you understand what science is, how it works and what it means when we say that something is objective then when you come back we can discuss how those things are applicable to the concept of race. But when you simply do not understand that science is contingent on objective data and that categorical data can be (and usually is) based upon objective measurements then you really lack the basic knowledge to discuss this subject.
Rand Rover, why have you chosen to focus on the posting style rather than the substance?
Do you think that is effective in helping us to resolve whether race has any biological validity?
Do you think that maybe it would be better if you actually read people’s posts and tried to understand what they were saying (instead of just assuming that you have sufficient understanding of a topic hat is clearly well outside your field of expertise)?
Some posters have talked about a racial spectrum, as if people’s external characteristics change smoothly and cleanly as you move from Africa to Europe to Asia. That implies that specific boundaries might be arbitrary but there is some logic to racial distinctions.
But if I understand correctly, the physical characteristics of race don’t necessarily have any connection to geography or to the genetic connections between people. In other words, two people on opposite sides of the planet can look “black” despite having no genetic connection. The only thing they share is a broad nose and dark skin.
What does “race” mean if a label applies to both these people even though they have no connection beyond looks?
Did you click the link? Did you see the genetic analysis that separated not “races,” but individual European subpopulations into clearly distinct groups? If your response doesn’t include an analysis of the post and paper in question, we shall conclude that you concede the point.
Try thinking for yourself rather than just counting google scholar cites for the past year. Does what he’s saying make sense? Also, Edwards, who is referring to using the terms race & population interchangeably (population being more palatable for “contemporary sensitivities”), was a Cambridge geneticist.
What you have there is a philosopher trying to convince biologists to use his terms, not working much. It is just offering very weak support to a conspiracy theory.
And some astronomers still called Pluto a planet for a while, most are going now for the new definition of dwarf planet.
And your insinuation still exudes “conspiracy theory”.
And the images I used were not selected because they were misleading. They were literally the first appropriate images of those groups that turned up in a Google image search.
There really is no geographical coherence to race, unless one defines race based upon geographical coherence.
But if one defines race based on geographical coherence then it has no phenotypic coherence.
But if one bases race on phenotypic coherence then it loses both geographic *and *genetic coherence.
IOW race can never refer to a group of related, physically identifiable people from a common area. Yet that is precisely what people mean when they say “race”.
Or, in simpler terms, race has no objective meaning.
