This can be paraphrased as the following:
Please tell us how racial distinctions are a useful biological concept if all of the assumptions listed above are true?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Telemark *
**
Well, first we have to define the word “useful” in the context of biology. Since you seem to have an idea about what it means, would you (or anyone else) care to take a stab at defining it?
And fatherjohn is looking for an actual definition here, not just examples of what is or isn’t “useful.”
Ideally, such a definition could used to test any biological distinction imaginable and let us decide whether such a distinction is “useful” or not.
My cut would be if there is a way to identify what “race” a person belongs to, it would be useful. However, all the evidence shows that to not to be. There are no set of biological or morphological attributes that meet that criteria.
So, from a biological standpoint, race is meaningless. How can it be useful if you can’t say what “race” a person is?! This is the crux of the issue, you are arguing for an internally inconsistent definition.
Pick an attribute that you think would be used to deliniate a “race”, say skin color. Now group people together by skin color and see if you have a logically consistant grouping. What do you end up with, but a collection of people that have no relationship except that one attribute that you chose to select on. BUT, through other means you can determine that they are not closely related, and it eliminates people who are closely related. Thus, the concept of race, from a biological standpoint as a way of grouping related people, is useless because it doesn’t work. Any such effort to use biological means to group people is doomed to failure on the grand racial scale.
Maybe if you could show some logical grouping that worked, you’d have a case. Do you? I think having concrete examples would make this much easier to discuss.
If you wanted to use the concept of race for social or psychological studies, you might be able to show that how people self-identify was a useful thing to have. But as a biological concept, it is internally inconsistant.
I believe the concept of utility has already been made quite clear, albeit implicitly. However, since the OP seems to be having trouble here, let’s restate:
In re biological uses: to be useful a category of analysis should enable one to describe some biologically meaningful entity and assist one understanding that entity, either in contrast with itself (over time, for example) or in contrast with other entities. Biologically meaningful means sharing some consistent traits or set of traits specific to the group.
But then, we’ve already made this clear in indicating why the classic races do not work. Repeatedly. May I say, ad nauseum?
If you are proposing some other method, perhaps population centered, then of course IMO, we’re no longer talking race per the standard usage.
So, shall we end this thread?
I’ve seen you many times saying how there is no such thing as race, etc. countless times. I’m not trying to start a fight here, I would just like you to give these articles a quick look and tell me how they are wrong. If you can, please answer in Layman’s terms since I have no where near the background in genetics that you appear to have.
A quote from the first site (page 2):
I also could not find a cite (I read about them in Entine’s book), but perhaps you’re familiar with studies by Marcelle Gerber? I don’t know the studies in depth, but they had to do with Ugandan infants maturing faster than European infants. Did Entine use the studies out of context? Were the studies just plain wrong?
It looks like you really know your stuff, but those articles look pretty convincing to someone like me who does not have any advanced knowledge of genetics. What is wrong with those articles?
Honestly, I think we’re making progress - we agree that “usefulness” is the essential issue. Now it’s a matter of defining usefulness.
Two questions about your definition:
(1) by “sharing some consistent traits or set of traits specific to the group,” can I assume you mean that (a) all (or virtually all) of the individuals in the group have a certain trait or set of traits; and (b) all (or virtually all) of the individuals outside that group lack such trait or set of traits?
(2) Can I assume that your definition may be used to assess ALL biological distinctions, great and small?
And the dishonesty continues:
No. I mentioned that the ring species analogy fails to work on an intraspecies comparison and noted that the specific point which led to the categorization of the two sets of birds was their failure to interbreed. fatherjohn falsely asserted that I was establishing “additional” criteria for this discussion. The statement by fatherjohn can, in no way, be considered a “summary” of my position on this topic. Since fatherjohn appears to be smart enough to have not made that mistake, it appears that the false assertion was deliberate.
As to the “utility” aspect, I am willing to consider it, provided it is applied to a sufficiently large group to avoid twisting the meaning of the word and provided the utility has a valid scientific purpose, such as for medicine, rather than a social or cultural purpose for which we have already acknowledged that race may be a “useful,” if flawed, tool.
Dignan, the sound you hear echoing across the Atlantic from the far side of the Mediterranean is that of Collounsbury beating his head on his desk.
The assertions of Entine and his fellows were pretty thoroughly chewed over in Why are African-American athletes better than white american athletes that wrapped up on March 1.
Fine, disregard the Entine article. Still I’d like an explanation on Gerber’s studies. Entine cited them, but he might have used them out of context. Gerber did the studies, they showed that Ugandans matured faster, was Gerber wrong? What about the other article? There are plenty of black people that said that they are built differently. What about that article?
I’ll forget about Entine, but I would like to know what you think about the other one.
My absence from this thread since my other post is not due to fatherjohn successfully sending my objections packing. Rather, it is based on the double circumstance of my having limited posting opportunity, and the fact of tom~, Collounsbury, et al, being so far out of my league that I have nothing useful to add.
I would like to take a moment, however, to remark on the OP as written (in part):
tom~ did a pretty good job of demonstrating that the basis for the argument is not, contrary to fatherjohn’s assertion, that the distinctions are arbitrary, but that they are do not exist in any meaningful way. However, fatherjohn appears to have a great deal of difficulty in accepting the meaninglessness of racial categories, and I am led to wonder if he and the others are even talking about the same thing.
Perhaps the issue of context should be addressed. fatherjohn, if you would, kindly favor us with three examples (to demonstrate frequency), of your having encountered the offensive argument, and include some description of the conversations that led up to the argument being put forth.
As to the definition of “usefulness,” [in biological terminology, of the word “race”] may I respectfully state that I find Collounsbury’s (possessing the ability to impart information to the hearer), to be superior to tom’s (possessing the potential to lead to breakthroughs in scientific understanding and marketable products). I trust you’ll both forgive me if I’ve mischaracterized either of your definitions.
First, in re Fatherjohn’s merry go round. I see no further point in replying to him insofar as he seems to be on a sterile search for… I don’t know what. In any case the necessary information is already available, so I have to say that further “questions” on his part are more or less simple attention seeking.
Returning to meatier issues
Entine. Sport Journalist. Scientifically illiterate and frankly eithe stupid or disingenous. I have already given a review of his legion of errors in past threads. If you search on sports, my username and his name you’ll find them.
Shrug. To the extent that this is a real observation, yes. But it’s not particularly useful. See prior threads in re the dynamic between genetic template and environment. Further, this says nothing at all about groups nor population structure.
I never heard of the studies (if you can provide the E book cites I might find time to look them up), but there are two simple observations:
(a) environment(*), one can not assume that away.
(b) non-generalizability of these observations, if true, to race as we don’t have the underlying basis to undertake such a generalization. Differential rates See, Entine assumes the very category which he should be examining. Given our genetic data, we cannot assume that data on Uganda babies (who may belong to a specific population) ipso facto are generalizable on a shared genome basis onto Africans or the universe of recenly African descended populations. Unfortunately, far too many researchers, due to inattention or other reasons, continue to do so. It is unsupportable.
The same for popular press/media/individual assertions in re "blacks’ being “built differently” than X,Y,Or Z. I ask you to read over the linked threads as the detials of these issues are time consuming to write out and have been covered extensively in the past.
See my past comments on Entine, fraid I don’t have time to reproduce the entire analysis here.
(*: when I say environment I mean the whole panalopy of influences possible, from pre-natal effects, possibly birth-mohter effects, basic nutrition --either poverty or culturally related-- issues, child-rearing etc. all of which can and do have substantial influences. They are also very difficult to adequately control for.)
Actually my intent in re my definition was not substantially different than Tom’s. I was thinking in terms of research oriented definitions. Essentially, does your category allow you to propose and answer biologically meaningful questions? Given our data to date, in re non-coherence of the classic races, the answer is no, in regards to biological research.
So, my definition has for a goal the precision of meaningful information which allows one to answer meaningful questions.
fatherjohn is seeking a clear, explicit definition of the word “useful.”
We both agreed, only a few posts ago, that “usefulness” is the critical issue in this debate.
You were kind enough to supply a definition, and I think I understand it, but I want to make sure.
You defined “useful” as follows:
**
(1) I assume that this definition is intended to be universal, not ad hoc.
(2) I assume that “sharing some consistent traits or set of traits specific to the group” means (a) all (or virtually all) members of the group in question bear a certain trait or set of traits; and (b) all (or virtually all) individuals outside the group lack such trait or set of traits.
I am merely trying to make sure that I understand your definition. So, if my assumptions are incorrect, please let me know (or forever hold your peace:)).
What do I mean by “fails”? Well, collounsbury is free to define “useful” however he likes. But his definition requires us to discard distinctions that are commonly accepted by biologists.
For example, the distinction between Larus Argentatus and Larus Fuscus.
Or, if one prefers a distinction that clearly does not cross a species boundary, the distinction between Larus a. Argentatus and Larus Argentatus Argenteus.
Now, fatherjohn anticipates the following objection:
“But fatherjohn, the examples you gave are different from racial distinctions.”
Possibly true, but irrelevant. fatherjohn is not claiming that the above distinctions are analogous to racial distinctions. They are merely offered to demonstrate that the definition of “useful” supplied by collounsbury requires the rejection of distinctions accepted with little controversy by biologists.
And now we can step off of the “merry-go-round.”
P.S. Earlier, fatherjohn promised to supply his own definition of “useful” and to make the “positive” argument – to defend racial distinctions. Is anyone still interested in this?
fatherjohn opened with an assertion (posed as a rhetorical question, but an assertion nevertheless), that people who deny the physical reality of race are being dishonest. The evidence to support the contention that race is an artificial construct with no underlying physical “reality” has been produced at length. fatherjohn has responded by producing no evidence to support his belief, by producing strained (and utterly invalid) analogies to challenge the evidence presented, by mischaracterizing the statements of his opponents, and by whining that he fears his statements will be picked apart if he is not allowed to define all the terms of the discussion without having provided any substance to discusss. (In other words, fatherjohn complains that his opponents might behave in the manner that he has been behaving.)
Given that fatherjohn opened with a charge of dishonesty and has been rather less than honest in his conduct, I see no reason to play this game. If fatherjohn wants to defend his original assertion, he is free to do so. Otherwise, it would appear that he is simply trying to disguise a (lame) Pit rant as a discussion.
I have one comment, Fatherjohn’s rebuttal does not (at least to a rational reading) address my definition in any way shape or form. In fact, I’m not sure what it actually says, other than to list some sub-species.
Shrug.
I now understand those pit threads about this poster.
Maybe fatherjohn needs to spell things out for you.
(1) Larus Fuscus does not “shar[e] some consistent traits or set of traits specific to the group.”
(i.e., there is no trait or set of traits you can point to which is universally found in Larus Fuscus that is universally lacking in Larus Argentatus.)
therefore,
(2) Larus Fuscus is not “biologically meaningful” according to your definition.
therefore,
(3) Larus Fuscus is not a “useful” category according to your definition.
therefore,
(4) Larus Fuscus is to be rejected as a category, according to your logic.
Bizzare. All I have to say, bizzare and tortured.
Is this the same as saying “The traditional classifications of Negroid/Caucasion/Mongoloid races is too broad to be meaningful”?
Or is it the same as saying “There is nothing that blacks/whites/Asians have in common”?
Or is it the same as saying “There is no way to tell if a person is black, white, or Asian”?
Or is it the same as saying “Race is different from species”?
I have read this thread over, and I can’t figure out what the heck you are arguing about.
Regards,
Shodan
OK, I’ll bite on the “ring species” objection.
YES, the classification of sub-species is arbitrary. Sometimes proposed sub-species have later been shown to have some biological coherence, but often they do not. Often the distinctions between sub-species come down to one or two alleles that exist in different frequences in the two populations…say, cinnamon Black bears vs. black Black bears vs. blue Black bears vs white Black bears.
The distinction between the two ends of the ring species IS arbitrary. While it may sometimes give you information about the population, I would suspect that it would also often mislead you about the population. For instance, if you assumed that members of one side were more similar to each other than they were to members of the other side. It could be that the only difference is a few alleles…and that there is no way to map other genetic differences onto the proposed sub-species classification. Or maybe their is.
So, proposed sub-species can often give negative amounts of information about population…meaning that often they are not useful. Sometimes they are, but more often they are not. But then I guess I’m a “lumper” at heart…
OK, about Shodan’s last post. Yes, there is no real way to tell what “race” a person is. Let’s take Jesse Jackson. He’s black, right? Well, if I did some geneological research, I bet I could show that more than 51% of his ancestors came from Europe, not Africa. The vast majority of American Blacks have some European ancestry. A sizable minority of American Blacks have a majority of their ancestry from Europe.
Is a Sri Lankan black, white, or asian? Is an australian aborigine black, white, or asian? Is a !kung bushman black, white, or asian? Is Jesse Jackson black, white, or asian?
You could, if you desired, place all these people into one of the three categories. But the results of such classification wouldn’t be particularly interesting biologically, would it?
What would be interesting would be to look at what group people would put Jesse Jackson into, and then see how their attitudes towards him map onto those arbitrary classifications. If people classify him as white, they tend to treat him one way. If the classify him as black, then tend to treat him another way. And this is due to the history of how racial classification was done on this continent, and how it is still being done. But fact that people make the classification is interesting and important, since they have cultural consequences. But the classifications themselves are incoherent.