Is race a valid concept?

[Mikemikev]

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?

[iNow]

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

[Mikemikev]

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?

[iNow]

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

[Mikemikev]

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.

[John Cuthber]

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 May 29, 2016 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

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.

[Delta1212]

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

[Mikemikev]

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 May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[dimreepr]

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

[Mikemikev]

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

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

[Fuzzwood]

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.

[John Cuthber]

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 May 29, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Mikemikev]

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?

[dimreepr]

Why should it?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

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?

[Mikemikev]

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.

[Strange]

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.

[Mikemikev]

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 May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Strange]

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?

[Mikemikev]

 

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.

[StringJunky]

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

We're all black inside.

[John Cuthber]

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.

[Strange]

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?

[Mikemikev]

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 May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev