Jump to content
Mikemikev

Is race a valid concept?

Recommended Posts

What does it mean for something to be a valid concept? How is race defined? How was it defined historically? What arguments invalidate it, if any? Are there similar concepts in other species? What is your view?

 

My position is that race was historically defined by ancestry by Darwin. He contrasted descent with modification, and descent, and stated descent alone was preferable to describe human races.

 

Mayr later supported genetic similarity regardless of descent as more informative.

 

Both methods in practice are similar, and genetic similarity informs phylogeny.

 

Marxist pseudoscientists have advanced a number of fallacious or arbitrary arguments to attempt to invalidate the idea. These often turn out to be made up rules or basic category fallacies. Sadly PBS tends to broadcast the pseudoscientists, so it has become popular belief.

 

What arguments can contradict ancestry based classification in humans? Is there a more informative way of describing human variation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You continue conflating ancestry with race. You should stop doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You continue conflating ancestry with race. You should stop doing that.

How do you define race? Darwin defined it by ancestry. So do I. Why do you think you can tell people how to define words? Who defines it otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race and ancestry are not one and the same. You should stop suggesting they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race and ancestry are not one and the same. You should stop suggesting they are.

Well if that's how people define it, then yes they are. Your opinion that they "shouldn't" is of no interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if that's how people define it, then yes they are. Your opinion that they "shouldn't" is of no interest.

If that were how "people" defined it, you would have a point. But it's how only you define it.

 

Actually, they define it like this

"

noun
noun: race; plural noun: races
  1. each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

"

But, it's far from clear that there are "major divisions" within mankind.

 

BTW, do you remember being reminded about slurs against groups of people?

Presumably not or you wouldn't have opened this thread with this "Marxist pseudoscientists have advanced a number of fallacious or arbitrary arguments to attempt to invalidate the idea. "

Would you prefer to withdraw it, or to try to demonstrate that it's true?

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if that's how people define it, then yes they are. Your opinion that they "shouldn't" is of no interest.

 

 

A 'Shih tzu' is a dog but it's not a wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were how "people" defined it, you would have a point. But it's how only you define it.

 

Actually, they define it like this

"

 

noun

noun: race; plural noun: races

 

  • each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

"

But, it's far from clear that there are "major divisions" within mankind.

BTW, do you remember being reminded about slurs against groups of people?

Presumably not or you wouldn't have opened this thread with this "Marxist pseudoscientists have advanced a number of fallacious or arbitrary arguments to attempt to invalidate the idea. "

Would you prefer to withdraw it, or to try to demonstrate that it's true?

Well that's another definition. As my OP makes clear there are several definitions, my OP references Darwin and Mayr, you reference some online dictionary. That's three different definitions. It's really the point: the concept is as defined. Arguing against something else is strawman. BTW you can divide mankind by ancestry or genetic similarity, no? Your dictionary suggests phenetics, also possible. Why not?

 

Sure how many Marxist pseudoscientists are enough? Shall we start with Richard Lewontin?

 

 

If it's based on descent, I guess we're all Africans.

Well you could say we're all pond scum. At some level of analysis that's true. At a more recent level we split from Africans. You are focussing on a "true" level of analysis. There isn't one. Also OOA theory is questioned.

Edited by Mikemikev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 'shih tzu' in England still doesn't make it a wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 'shih tzu' in England still doesn't make it a wolf.

I've no idea what point you are trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A human is a human is a human. We can still mate and provide viable offspring, no matter which combination of people of opposite sex do the mating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's another definition. As my OP makes clear there are several definitions, my OP references Darwin and Mayr, you reference some online dictionary.

 

Sure how many Marxist pseudoscientists are enough? Shall we start with Richard Lewontin?

 

 

 

Have you actually read Darwin's stuff?

If you have, you will notice that many words have changed their definitions and use since then. Particularly in the realms of biology.

 

Fine, He's a Marxist.

And according to wiki

" From 1973 to 1998, he held an endowed chair in zoology and biology at Harvard University, and since 2003 has been a research professor there."

So, in response to being warned about casting slurs on people, you just described a Harvard research professor as a "pseudoscientist".

Wouldn't it be easier if you just left the site?

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A human is a human is a human. We can still mate and provide viable offspring, no matter which combination of people of opposite sex do the mating.

None of this contradicts further subdivision.

Have you actually read Darwin's stuff?

If you have, you will notice that many words have changed their definitions and use since then. Particularly in the realms of biology.

 

 

I know. I put Mayr's revised concept in the OP. Of course I have read Darwin. What suggested I hadn't?

 

 

Fine, He's a Marxist.

And according to wiki

" From 1973 to 1998, he held an endowed chair in zoology and biology at Harvard University, and since 2003 has been a research professor there."

So, in response to being warned about casting slurs on people, you just described a Harvard research professor as a "pseudoscientist".

Wouldn't it be easier if you just left the site?

 

He is most known for a pseudoscientific idea. Are you familiar with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Of course I have read Darwin. What suggested I hadn't?

He is most known for a pseudoscientific idea. Are you familiar with it?

 

That you think that the definitions of words have not changed since his time.

Who are you to say it's pseudoscience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That you think that the definitions of words have not changed since his time.

Who are you to say it's pseudoscience?

 

Lol. I specifically noted a changing definition in the OP.

 

Because it's demonstrably false. Pseudo means false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's demonstrably false. Pseudo means false.

 

 

That appears to be an example of the etymological fallacy. A hypothesis or theory can be shown to be wrong, but that does not make it pseudoscience. Newtonian gravity is "wrong" (at some level) that doesn't make it pseudoscience. Phlogiston theory is wrong, but it wasn't pseudoscience. The steady state universe model is wrong, but it wasn't pseudoscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That appears to be an example of the etymological fallacy. A hypothesis or theory can be shown to be wrong, but that does not make it pseudoscience. Newtonian gravity is "wrong" (at some level) that doesn't make it pseudoscience. Phlogiston theory is wrong, but it wasn't pseudoscience. The steady state universe model is wrong, but it wasn't pseudoscience.

I think ad hoc non-sequitur attacks on concepts for political reasons qualifies as pseudoscience.

 

Lewontin's fallacy is pretty lame science.

 

We could also look at Franz Boas, who cherry picked data to claim racial head shape changed in different environments. That's pseudoscience.

Edited by Mikemikev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you define race? Darwin defined it by ancestry. So do I.

 

How many races are there in your system?

 

What race would you assign to someone with ancestors, in the last few generations, who were Chinese, Berber, San, Thai, Indian, Arabian, Norway, Inuit, Sicilian, Mexican?

 

Is that the same race as someone with ancestors, in the last few generations, who were Chinese, Polynesian, San, Thai, Indian, Arabian, Norway, Inuit, Sicilian, Mexican?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How many races are there in your system?

 

What race would you assign to someone with ancestors, in the last few generations, who were Chinese, Berber, San, Thai, Indian, Arabian, Norway, Inuit, Sicilian, Mexican?

 

Is that the same race as someone with ancestors, in the last few generations, who were Chinese, Polynesian, San, Thai, Indian, Arabian, Norway, Inuit, Sicilian, Mexican?

 

Depends on the level of analysis. Categories subdivide. There is no true level of analysis.

 

Obviously racial assignment depends on specifics in each case. It sounds like they would be hybrids roughly equidistant between major clusters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "logic" consists of thinking that words mean the same that they did over 100 years ago, calling professors pseudoscientists and not being able to count the races that you think exist.

 

We can refute it. We did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you define race? Darwin defined it by ancestry. So do I.

 

 

OK. So I gather you are interested in using this concept is scientific studies. How would you evaluate and quantify this, for that purpose? For example, would you need to look at the family history of each participant in the study? And if so, how many generations back? And if not, do you use something else as a proxy for ancestry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "logic" consists of thinking that words mean the same that they did over 100 years ago, calling professors pseudoscientists and not being able to count the races that you think exist.

 

We can refute it. We did.

You are either lying or fail to understand what I wrote. We can count races. There are 5 at one level, 30 at another. I've repeated to you definitions change. Why do you continue to lie otherwise? Professors can be pseudoscientists. Welcome to not parroting authorities.

OK. So I gather you are interested in using this concept is scientific studies. How would you evaluate and quantify this, for that purpose? For example, would you need to look at the family history of each participant in the study? And if so, how many generations back? And if not, do you use something else as a proxy for ancestry?

SIRE seems to correspond well to genetic clusters, which match ancestry. You don't need to operationalize with 100% precision to do science. Ideally we'd use genomic ancestry. That's coming.

 

No-one has called you a troll, yet every-one has refuted your logic; hence the prediction.

I was called a troll. Stop lying.

Edited by Mikemikev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.