OpenPsych forums
[OBG] Nature of Race Full - Printable Version

+- OpenPsych forums (https://www.openpsych.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://www.openpsych.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Post-review discussions (https://www.openpsych.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: [OBG] Nature of Race Full (/showthread.php?tid=226)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Emil - 2015-Apr-11

I agree that it would be better if this publication would stick with the argument about the reality and importance of race, not the more emotional/political/moral stuff concerning discrimination, in-group favoritism and so on.


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Chuck - 2015-Apr-11

(2015-Apr-11, 02:04:42)Emil Wrote: I agree that it would be better if this publication would stick with the argument about the reality and importance of race, not the more emotional/political/moral stuff concerning discrimination, in-group favoritism and so on.


I wish you commented before I made edits in line with MH's position. They are in red. Let me know what you both think. I will edit later.


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Emil - 2015-Apr-11

Since you have merged it, I can read the whole thing thru again if you want.


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Chuck - 2015-Apr-12

(2015-Apr-11, 16:19:20)Emil Wrote: Since you have merged it, I can read the whole thing thru again if you want.


Yes, could you. But first let me post an updated version. In a couple of days.


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Meng Hu - 2015-Apr-13

(2015-Apr-11, 01:11:50)Chuck Wrote: I would like to rewrite parts of 6. Could you identify the arguments most in need of improving. I don't want to defend adaptive utilitarianism and justify biased discrimination -- it's out of place here. I have thought about it myself, though. I know what you mean. This topic deserves a separate paper.


I only said this : do what you want. I don't want to give my approval conditional on what you write in section 6. That's not the most important thing. But if you want my input, I would say that the key element here is the fact ethnic kinship is just an extension of family kinship and that regardless of the acceptance of biological races, people will continue to practice nepotism for the same reason (which has originally nothing to do with races). Generally, you said that although I would approach the matter in a very different way. The only thing that makes no sense to me is this passage :

Quote:But, like (preference) utilitarianism, this type of adaptive ethics, does not currently have much ethical currency. It does not then put us in a situation to well evaluate viable consequentialist arguments against our cosmopolitan concept of race.

Salter explained why his adaptive utilitarianism does not involve injustice. So, your argument doesn't make sense. Consequentialist arguments certainly don't take into account the difference between proximate and ultimate interests. Salter has strongly insisted on that (see pp. 311-312 of his book).

To be honest, there are more urgent matters. Such as the abstract. It has improved, yet I don't think it's satisfying. If the article is short, maybe. But most people would hesitate before deciding to read the entire article. Because it's too long. That's why the abstract needs to be more exciting. Think about this passage :

Quote:This concept of race is compared and contrasted with other ones presented in the philosophical literature. The concept is then situated in the developed biological onto-epistemology, and it is explained why this concept is not radically different from those race concepts first developed in the 18th century. Next, the concept is discussed in relation to anthropological discourse. Traditional human racial classifications are discussed in detail and are defended from common criticisms.

First sentence : what "other ones" ? and in what way it helps to defend or understand your defense of the race concept ?
Second sentence : in what way it helps to defend your argument ?
Third sentence : same.
Fourth sentence : what common criticisms ?

The other sentences also have the same problem. I don't believe you can convince someone to read 150-160 pages with an abstract such as "Finally, the race concept is defended from various criticisms. First, logical and empirical critiques are dissected.". It has no flavour. You need something spicy. You have to pique their curiosity. So, I will appreciate if you feel like rewriting the abstract entirely. It will be a sad time if you realize that people don't want to read it because it's too long.

Here's my suggestion. Put your best arguments in the spotlight. You can say explicitly that the concepts developed in the 18th century were not essentialistic concepts (be it species realist's species or character essentialism) and thus criticisms arguing about that missed the point (you can put in parentheses "section 3"). You can say also that genetic discontinuity is a requirement for species, not races (you can put in parentheses "section 5"). You can also say that the Lewontin's argument doesn't work because 15% is already a meaningful effect size and that it even ignores intra-individual variations. And that races are generally not treated as taxonomic categories (e.g., sections 1 and 5), that human characters don't vary independently unlike what people such as Diamond (1994) would have it but instead are correlated, that there is no need of unique answer to the question of how many races there are. etc... etc... If you do that, I'm certain that the average reader will become much more interested in what you have to say. Ideally, your abstract should send the following message "I know all your arguments: here's the list [bla bla bla...]. And they are all wrong".


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Chuck - 2015-Apr-13

I rewrote the abstract (not in red) and a number of other passages throughout the piece (in red). Please check over. I found that I used "criteria" (pl.) and criterion interchangeably.


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Chuck - 2015-Apr-13

(2015-Apr-13, 07:08:01)Chuck Wrote: I rewrote the abstract (not in red) and a number of other passages throughout the piece (in red). Please check over. I found that I used "criteria" (pl.) and criterion interchangeably.


Note that only the doc file was updated for the abstract.


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Chuck - 2015-Apr-14

(2015-Apr-13, 21:41:27)Chuck Wrote:
(2015-Apr-13, 07:08:01)Chuck Wrote: I rewrote the abstract (not in red) and a number of other passages throughout the piece (in red). Please check over. I found that I used "criteria" (pl.) and criterion interchangeably.


Note that only the doc file was updated for the abstract.


The pdf has been updated.


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Meng Hu - 2015-Apr-15

I have read the passages in red, and I see no problems. I accept the publication.


RE: [OBG] Nature of Race Full - Chuck - 2015-Apr-16

I will make public the list of reviewer requests I have sent out. I am primarily emailing researchers who have written about the biological concept.

Adam Hochman -- pending (sent 4/16)

Michael O. Hardimon -- pending (sent 4/14)

Jeremy Pierce -- No reply (sent 4/08)

Michael Levin -- Accepted, then no reply after (sent 3/13)

Michael Woodley -- Replied, noted he liked it, but said to publish elsewhere (sent 3/13)

Neven Sesardic -- Replied, busy (3/11)