Can you give me an example of how this might work? I have trouble imagining such a situation.
Again, I’m confused as to how you don’t know this already.
Your analogy still doesn’t work. The existence of God can be hypothetically assumed as a given, if people want to discuss details about the presumed nature of God, precisely because the existence of God is not scientifically determinable and does not rest on scientific evidence.
But the existence of race as a scientifically meaningful concept indicating a generally valid connection between phenotypic similarity and genetic kinship IS scientifically determinable, and DOES depend on scientific evidence, by definition.
And according to scientific evidence, such a concept of race is not scientifically valid. You may wish to assume for purposes of discussion that it is valid, but you shouldn’t expect to be protected from criticism of that false assumption.
The question of whether biological race is recognized as a scientifically valid concept is not a matter of opinion or individual belief. You do not get to start a thread declaring “Let’s assume that biological race is scientifically valid” and pursue that supposition immune from contradiction by the better-informed. Not on a board devoted to fighting ignorance.
Thanks tom, will do. My apologies to all for the lack of clarity.
I’ve really tried to understand this argument that race is an entirely social construct with no basis in biology. I mean that not to be snarky. I’ve lurked in similar threads, and still walk away shaking my head and not understanding.
How is race in humans, different from, say, breed in dogs. They’re all the same species. There are some that are more “pure” of one breed than another. There is certainly a continuum, and an individual dog can be a chihuahua/mastiff/dalmatian mix.
Is there a reason this isn’t equivalent?
Several, AIUI. The most easily understandable one IMO is this:
We are used to thinking of similarity of physical appearance as indicating closeness of genetic relationship. Siblings tend to resemble each other more closely than cousins, cousins tend to resemble each other more closely than people from different families, and so on.
That’s in line with your “breeds of dog” analogy. We automatically assume that when individuals (canine or human) resemble each other in superficial physical characteristics, it’s probably because they’re genetically related. More similar-looking = more closely related genetically. It seems to us like a natural and obvious assumption.
But when you’re talking about very large groups in the human species, it doesn’t necessarily work that way. There are many populations that resemble each other in their “racial” physical characteristics who are actually not closely related at all in terms of genetic descent. They look alike because they happened to develop those physical characteristics in similar environments.
A classic example is that of dark-skinned African populations who are actually more closely related to light-skinned Scandinavians than they are to dark-skinned South Indians or dark-skinned Australians. Such situations occurred when, e.g., a group of early humans descended from a particular African population (call it A) migrated out and eastward and wound up in a tropical climate where they needed high melanin levels, so they maintained (or re-developed) dark skin. Meanwhile, descendants of a genetically different African population (say, B) migrated to a northern, less sunny climate and stopped producing such abundant melanin.
In consequence, the dark-skinned Africans descended from Population B are genetically closer to the light-skinned northerners (who are also descended from Population B) than they are to the dark-skinned easterners descended from Population A.
Even though the two dark-skinned groups would be described by a naive observer as belonging to the same “race”, one of them is actually more closely related to the light-skinned group than to the other dark-skinned group. Counterintuitive, huh?
And that’s where your “dog breed” analogy doesn’t hold up. As I put it over in the parallel GQ thread:
It just goes to show that asking “which post” is not the same as the “why game”
You asked me “which post” and I showed exactly what I was talking about.
Bye.
Offhand, I can’t think of any way to make it clearer. But I will think about it.
Now please answer my questions. For starters, what does it matter whether I give you a general definition of racism when we are already talking about a specific instance?
Also, what is your definition of racism?
Also, in which 2 posts did I claim that the criteria should be different for scientists?
Thank you.
What if instead of talking about what the naive observer observes, which, similar to your suntanning analogy is arbitrary and malleable for dogs as well, we were talking about quantifiable and definitive genetic markers?
For example, with dogs it is possible to do a SNP analysis of DNA and identify what breed(s) the sample came from.
I do know that it is possible to do that for humans. In fact, we did that in introductory bio lab; we amplified a section of mitochondrial DNA and checked the sequence, and the results fell nicely in line with observed races (albeit only in the broad grouping of “white,” “black,” and “asian”)
It doesn’t. I just want to know why there’s a difference.
47, 53, 55, 61, 67, 89, and 116. A bit more than two, at this point, but it’s been a busy thread since I first said that.
Here’s what I said in post 116:
Nowhere in this post do I claim that the criteria should be different. Or the same, for that matter.
What is your definition of racism?
In other words, what if we replaced our current concept of “race” (i.e., naively classified groupings based on superficial physical characteristics) with a concept of “race” defined instead by quantifiable and definitive genetic markers?
Well, yes, that would make the concept of “race” much more reliable as an indicator of genetic kinship. Quantifiable and definitive genetic markers, by definition, are reliable indicators of genetic descent.
So yeah, if what you’re really saying is “Can’t we think of a way to redefine ‘race’ that would be biologically meaningful?”, then AFAIK the answer is “Yes, of course”.
But the point here is that the concept of “race” as currently interpreted isn’t biologically meaningful.
Ok, thanks. I think I see my problem. Because, I guess as a scientist, when I think of “race”, I am thinking of genetic markers rather than the naive observer.
So, when someone says to me, one race has no differences in say, ability to run long distances, that statement makes no sense. Because to me, a race of people would be classified as those that look similar on a SNP chip. If they didn’t look similar by SNPs, we wouldn’t go to as much trouble to run genome wide analyses within a given race (ethnicity?) of people.
And, by definition then, would have genetic differences which would pretty much have to mean that there would be physical manifestations.
I think people may be using the word “race” closer to the way I describe it above; a genetic distinction rather than an observational distinction. Certainly, a guy like Watson would be.
(again, not that the guy isn’t pretty clearly a racist based on some of his statements such as what it’s like to work with black people!)
Yes, you did. Right here:
If there’s no difference in the criteria between determining if a scientist is racist, and a non-scientist is racist, than limiting the context to only cover scientists will not make the question simpler. The only way limiting the context in that manner would make the question simpler, is if word has a different definition when applied to scientists, than it would when applied to non-scientists.
That’s an inference, not a statement. And it happens to be incorrect for the reasons I stated earlier.
I thought of an illustration:
Suppose you ask me what the weather will be like in New Jersey tomorrow.
And I say that to make the process of prediction simpler, I would like to limit my forecast to north Jersey.
It doesn’t follow that I am implying that the weather will be different in south Jersey. It might be different; it might be the same. I just prefer not to worry about it.
What is your definition of racism?
But it does imply that the conditions for determining the weather will be different in South Jersey than they would be for North Jersey. Otherwise, limiting your prediction to North Jersey wouldn’t make things easier, since the exact same reasoning would lead to the exact same conclusion when predicting the weather for South Jersey.
So, what are the conditions that make determining if a scientist is racist different from the conditions that determine if a non-scientist is racist?
No it doesn’t. One might not even know those “conditions” in advance.
Now what is your definition of racism?
It does imply that those conditions might be different, however.
Okay. And how might the conditions for determing if a scientist is racist be different from determing if a non-scientist is a racist?
I don’t know. I would need to think about it.
Now, please tell me your definition of racism.
Well, how much time do you need? You’ve had three days, so far.