Question about race: not real?

Great Debates
41

Here is a summary of lucwarm’s posts to this thread, starting with the first.

This makes a claim about “bait and switch.” The support given is that they “… dance around,” followed by the underlined sentence of which I can’t make heads or tails.

I guess the import is that lucwarm opposes the “race is invalid” position but it’s hard to tell because he’s kind of wishy-washy.

There is still no outright statement of lucwarm’s position on the “race is invalid” question. I guess this is so a later withdrawal, if needed, will be easier - you know the “I never said ________ (fill in the blanks)” ploy.

And, of course whether or not a particular individual can answer a particular question is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not race is a meaningful scientific concept.

It would be illuminating if lucwarm would clearly state a position in support of “race is a valid scientific concept useful for categorizing humans” if that is indeed his, or her, understanding.

If his whole point is that posters here haven’t yet convinced lucwarm, so what?

There is nothing new in lucwarm’s approach. He still doesn’t support whatever position, if any, he has regarding the realidy of a scientific basis for “race.” If he has a stance on the question he might follow his own declaration in the underlined sentence and give a “principled reason” for it. By they way, can you define “principled reason” for us, lucwarm?

Taken as a whole, lucwarm’s posts resemble those of your typical agitator who doesn’t want to take a stand and defend it but merely stands by and snipes.

42

Okay, just for a second, maybe we can agree on this: that, even if “race” is pretty meaningless in biological terms, the CONCEPT of race has been out there a long time. And even if the concept was fatally flawed, it’s affected our thinking, and its shaped the attitudes of many societies.

So, even if there’s VERY little genetic difference between Irish me, a Cherokee, a Mexican, and a black man, the fact remains, old and outdated notions of race (and rtacial superiority) were the foundation of slavery, colonialism, and all the evils/problems that those things entailed.

And that means that, even if a latter day liberal like Tomndeb believes race is biologically meaningless, he’s NOT necessarily wrong to think we have to take it into consideration when we vote, or when we make public policy.

43

This question? (The answer to which you have ignored in the 30 or so previous threads?)

Noting, first off, that we are discussing biology and genetics, so that cultural and sociological definitions are already outside consideration:

A “hard and fast” line would be a physical trait or series of physical traits found wholly (exclusively and completely) throughout a very large segment of the world’s human population. In other words, the traits or series of traits must be capable of being used to identify any member of such a “race” while not accidentally including members of other “races.” If one cannot use a trait or series of traits to correctly identify an individual 100% of the time, that(those) trait(s) cannot be said to define a group.*

Appearance does not work. I can find people in several parts of the world who share similar appearances while being more distantly related than others who do not share those appearances. If you create a “race” called Negro and include people from the Congo Basin and the Andoman islands because they look alike, you are going to have an invalid definition, because the Andoman Islanders are not closely related to the Africans, despite appearances.

Genetics does not work, because we have already seen repeated publications of genetic information that demonstrates that humans are too homogeneous to be identified on a world-wide scale by a prevalence of specific alleles.

So, presuming that David Simmons is in error and you actually have a position, what physical trait or traits can you identify that would clearly define any individual in the world as belonging to a specific “race.” (I’ll even cut you some slack–you can limit yourself to humans as they existed prior to 1400 C.E. so that we don’t get caught in the problem that people of mostly sub-Saharan African descent in the U.S., today, actually derive a significant amount of ancestry from the European and Indian populations of North America.)

**E.g.*, we had a thread a week or so ago discussing an allele on the Y chromosome that appeared in the Americas through the founder effect. One poster held that the presence of that allele, found nowhere except the Americas (and a tiny corner of Asia) clearly defined a “race.” However, no woman carries that allele, so we could never use that allele to identify any woman as part of that “race” and only half the men of the indigenous populations carried that allele, so half the men we could test could not be identified as part of that “race.” So, where is the meaning of the word “race” in this context?

Where does the word “race” have any meaning in a biological sense?

44

Actually, I don’t believe you have ever answered both questions that I posed in this thread. I can’t say for sure since I haven’t read every thread.

But why not indulge me with a simple “yes” or “no” answer? If you’re not “dancing,” then you shouldn’t be afraid to answer questions about your position, right?

**Is it your position that any grouping for which you “can’t draw a hard and fast line” around groups does not exist as a scientific concept? **

(For the record, if you’re curious about my position in the whole race debate, I was pretty convinced by much of the argument that IzzyR put forward in the thread about race and genital size a little while back.) And I do give you credit for defining “hard and fast.”

45

For those of us who are following this thread and need a little clarification; could you please restate the question that has not been answered yetlucwarm?

46

I dunno. That is your broadening of edwino’s statement. His actual statement was

which you have now expanded to include “any grouping.”
Since you have expressed a familiarity with “bait and switch” tactics, I suspect you are using them, here. If I agree to your broadened definition, you will then come back with some application of grouped generalities and claim that I am denying some different aspect of science.

Limited to the topic, the subdivision of humanity, I would say yes, if you cannot draw a hard and fast line around it, it does not exist. Otherwise, what are you talking about? We cannot use an ill-defined group for medical purposes. We cannot use an ill-defined group to identify their age at maturity or their physical growth or their expected lifespans. An ill-defined group, in the context of dividing up humanity, is worthless and effectively does not exist.

So, basically, when we state that “Race has no biological value.” your reply is that there might be some other non-biological reason for looking at race. Since this does not contradict the statements by edwino or Collounsbury, or myself that racial groupings may have a cultural or sociological application, your initial foray into this thread, is simply a contrarian strawman.
In other words, you challenge people who claim that “race does not exist” (with the clear implication in this thread that you are challenging those of us who are posting regarding biological realities) when, in fact, no one has made any such claim (given that sjgouldrocks has not been posting, lately).

Leaving aside the opinions of sjgouldrocks, I do not recall anyone claiming that “race does not exist” outside the specific context of biology. So you’d like to think that there are non-scientific applications for the concept? Fine with me. (As long as you don’t try to sneak back in and make a claim for some nonexixtent biological support for whatever point you are making.)

47

Here’s what edwino actually said:

A fair reading of this statement is that edwino is saying because you cannot draw a “hard and fast line” around a group, the grouping in question “does not exist” as a “scientific concept.”

Those were his words. Note that he doesn’t try to claim that his reasoning applies only to human groups. He simply says that because you cannot “draw a hard and fast line,” the grouping is invalid, unscientific, etc.

Thus, I am not “broadening” his statement. Actually you are qualifying his reasoning, i.e. limiting its application. I imagine we could continue this process for a while, but there’s no need.

**

If I get a chance, I will take a look at the thread and respond. It could be that we are looking at different posts by the same poster. Certainly I agree with you on many of the points you make about race.

48

I’ve read about this particular hypothesis (why broad noses) several time here on the SDMB, and I’m wondering if that is just your own hypothesis or if it has been published and peer reviewed.

If I consider a mechanism for heat radiation, the elongated fins of an air cooled motor comes to mind. The broad African nose hardly increases the surface area of the face . If heat dissipitation is selected for in nose shape, one would expect that Armenia would be in the tropics.

The reason this hypothesis fails in my opinion is that it does not recognize the more effective body functions of heat dissipitation, overall blood vessel dilation and sweating and ignores the actual functions of the nose as described by the American Academy of Otolaryngology here, http://www.entlink.net/education/curriculum/nose_anat_func.cfm

It seems to me therefore that the broad nose of the African and Australian is the baseline nose of humanity, and the elongated noses of some northern and mountain peoples evolved to increase the warming and humidifying of intake air capacity.

49

That is the prevailing explanation.

It is misleading to say that the “elongated noses … evolved to” do anything. It is probable that a nose that warms and humidifies the air better in cold, dry climates results in fewer respiratory problems, leading to a longer and more active life resulting in an advantage in leaving more descendants having that trait than those with other nose structures. You were probably just putting it that way as a shortand mode of expression, but physical traits evolving for a purpose is not the way evolution works…

50

Correction noted-----------thanx

51

I have noticed that whenever this debate comes up, the “no-race” brigade always seize upon genes. Yes, we know that it’s hard/impossible to find racial “genes”. But read the OP. He’s not talking about genes per se. He’s talking about “physical traits”.

And yes, there clearly are physical traits that define race in most people’s understanding of the definition of race. Yes, the groups are very blurred, what with inter-breeding, exposure to sun affecting skin colour, etc. But if anyone here can stick up their hand and say they can’t recognise a “chinese/oriental” person as distinct from a “black/african” person as distinct from a “white/caucasian” person, then they need to visit an eye-doctor.

And however these superficial physical differences emerged - whether just from different inbreedings and family groupings, or from evolution (ie melanin-hotter countries) - they are clearly there, it it clearly easy to have a fair guess at most people’s rough ancestric geographic origin.

52

You’re probably right istara, everyone should be able to recognize any member of the “chinese/oriental” group or the “black/african” group. Certainly, this photograph and this photograph leave no one in doubt as to what group the pictured individual belongs.

However, we do not claim that no one can identify a general group according to “race.” The general appearance of people is what led people as far back as the 18th century to propose scientific categories for the geographic distribution of peoples–and I, at least, have never accused Linnaeus or his immediate successors of racism. They were simply caught up in sorting life forms into groups and used gross appearance to create boxes into which to sort humanity.

This is why I have noted on multiple occasions that “race” can be used in cultural or sociological contexts. People can make general distinctions and act on them and people who study the kinds of decisions one makes should be aware of how those decisions are made.

The problem with those general divisions is that believing that there is an underlying biological coherence to them leads various people, (Shockley, Rushton, Herrnstein & Murray, and others) to make stupid and erroneous claims about non-existent differences between culturally identified people. As long as the great mass of people believe that differences in melanin expression or hair texture are representative of deeper realities, Rushton and Murray can find audiences to believe that some groups are inherently oversexed or intellectually deficient. The purpose of opposing the use of “race” in a biological context (hence, the emphasis on genetics) is to demonstrate that we cannot determine the intelligence, speed, or degrees of pacifism or industry based on those physical appearances.

(There is also the point that while it is probably true that most people can clearly recognize the ethnic background of South Africa’s Desmond Tutu, China’s Zhu Rongji, or the Netherlands’ Queen Beatrice, there are an awful lot of people in outlying places where the three or five or sixty purported “races” are supposed to live that cannot be so easily identified. I notice, for example, the photos I linked above are not from Africa, at all, but from Asian islands several thousand miles away, separated from Africa by the entire Middle East and India.)

53

By the way:

His original question in GQ sought an answer to why people oppose the use of race. The actual first posts responded with the distinction between cultural and biological races explaining how they can be used or misused. That was a general question that received a Straight Dope answer. It was only after tarpal appeared to claim that any opposition to the word race was simply “PC” that the further discussion ensued.

Note, please, that no person on this thread has claimed that “races don’t exist.” Several of us have pointed out that one needs to distinguish between the useful cultural definition of race and the useless biological definition of race.

54

tomndebb, for what it’s worth, over the course of 2 years and many threads I’ve heard you make these arguments several times; and I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the lucidity with which you make them, time and again.

55

Well, that thread was a fairly verbose experience. :rolleyes:

Let’s cut through the BS, shall we?

We’re all people. So what if your skin is darker/lighter than mine? So what if your hair/eye color is different from mine? That is utterly and totally insignificant. I’m a person. So are you. That goes regardless of what continent our ancestors are from.

I am me. I am not my ancestors. I am an individual. Go ahead and parse the word “individual”. Know what it means? “In” means “not” in this context (INvalid, INsecure, etc). “Divid” comes from “divide”, which means “to break into sections”. Thus “individual” means one person, not a group. The “end user”, as it were. Your personality, likes/dislikes, affections, pet peeves, etc. are all shaped by your life experiences and personal tastes. Those are - or should be - independent of inherited features.

F*ck race/ethnicity/whatever. All it does is get in the way.

56

My point is that the “race is invalid” position is vague and shifting. Many of the people who espouse this position use the “race is invalid” argument to contradict certain arguments. But when you push them to specify their position, adherents of the “race is invalid” position typically qualify their argument down to the point where it no longer contradicts the original arguments that they had set out to contradict.

**

In certain forms I oppose the “race is invalid” position, but in other forms, I agree with it wholeheartedly. It’s simply too vague to definitively say “yea” or “nay” to.
**

I think it shows pretty well what I set out to demonstrate. I asked two pointed questions about edwino’s statements, and the polka music started almost immediately.

**

A reason that is general in application.

Let me use the phrase in a couple sentences for you:

edwino’s post made it sound like he was rejecting the concept of race for a principled reason. However, after tomndebb’s post, it now seems that the reason may be ad hoc, arbitrary, and/or self-serving.

57

???

58

So, should we hijack this into another mouth pippetting thread?

59

OK, I’m back. I have been swamped at work post-return from this aforementioned conference, so I have neglected anything SDMB.

Quite honestly, this whole thing has become kind of a semantics game. As usual, I am siding with the usual suspects who have kindly been responding to statements I made back on the first page, and have already provided nice answers to lucwarm.

To directly address lucwarm’s point:

Race, as it comes up in these debates, is a criterion used for defining characteristics between different sets of people beyond the defining racial characteristics that we can all rattle off. This is with what we have issues.

Let me be very careful here. Racial groups are defined by a set of characteristics (let’s call this set of characteristics set A, which includes things like facial/nasal structure, skin color, hair type, epicanthic fold). Some posters insist on taking people of set A and reading into this another set of characteristics (set B) – athletic and intellectual abilities come up most often.

tomndebb, Collounsbury, Tars Tarkas, and others including myself point out the fallacy in this. Given a group of people of shared characteristics set A, we have shown genetically that set A are the only things they have in common. We presume that apart from few hundred or so (WAG) genes polymorphic in determining set A, they won’t have much effect on the hugely multifactorial set B. After all, there are 30,000+ genes in the genome.

My hypothesis lies that set A just happens to be the traits evolutionarily selected for in different environments. That’s all that I’m saying. I could be wrong, it is just a hypothesis.[sup]*[/sup]

Now about my “hard and fast” thing. Genetic similarity is a very quantifiable thing. It is something that we can follow through population migrations, through generations, through population mixings. There is no scientific need to talk in nebulous terms about quantifiable data. There is no scientific need to talk in nebulous terms period. We have demonstrated over and over again that characteristics of set A have no correlation to the quantifiable genetic similarity. So set A becomes irrelevant to any conclusions we make to genes beyond set A. Especially to things like set B, which are mostly !set A.

I would say that the “harder” the science, the less we talk in nebulous terms like race. As an MD/PhD student, I function in both the hard science of molecular genetics and the softer science of medicine. It is kind of the goal of my program to be able to carry some of this hard science to the bedside. So, yes, nebulous terms without “hard and fast” definitions are less useful in science, and we should try to banish them where we encounter them.

In molecular genetics, or molecular anthropology, “race” has no utility. We have better terms. Go to softer science, and in it creeps. In medicine, see the great NEJM articles of last year for opinions of medical professionals trying to move beyond race, even though it has large utility as a classification scheme. This utility arises from its use in an even softer science – sociology. So when we say that African Americans have a greater mortality from prostate cancer, this has nominal, if any, genetic (hard science) component dependent or linked to set A characteristics[sup]*[/sup]. It has a tremendous sociologic component – diet, exercise, smoking, access to health care, environment, etc.

Does this make sense?

So what is “hard and fast?” I would say that if a definition is based on quantifiable data, is reproducible, stems from physiologic or anthropologic relevance, and is independent of observer bias, then it is pretty “hard and fast.” Race as a scientific concept does not fulfill these requirements. But I am not a philosopher of science. I am kind of shooting from the hip of working in the lab all day.

To grienspace:
No, I don’t know if it has been published. I was hypothesizing. It may not be true. The only data I have to support it is that common traits are found throughout common environments (i.e. dark skin in the tropics) and that genetic backgrounds are not shared. So, there must be a reason for common traits to be found across broad swaths of humanity. Add this into quantified genetic advantage from sickle cell trait and perhaps cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs carriage, and I made a leap. I will revise the specific statement about noses to more along your lines – pointier, narrower noses were selected in colder climes for increased warming, etc. etc., and never selected in warmer climes.

[sup]*[/sup] – I recognize that there are some traits at high levels in African American populations that are not what we would call racially defining traits. Things like G6PD, SCD, and perhaps genes involved in carcinogenesis. But I stick by my hypothesis – these alleles were for whatever reason evolutionarily selected for in diverse populations sharing an environment. To support this, as pointed out numerous times, Mediterranean people share malarial resistance traits such as SCD and G6PD. The trait follows the selection criterion, not the “race.”

60

Let me just add that when I say that something is “scientifically” dead, I mean that it is dead under the “hard science” criteria that I use.

I’m sure a philosopher of science or a scientist of a “harder” science than myself like organic chemistry or physics will soon come along and show me how all of my molecular genetics method and logic is too “soft” for them.